I hope I can watch this again someday, and enjoy it in a different way. But as far as seeing it in the theater goes, it was a mildly enjoyable journey that turned in to an annoying slog, which ultimately culminated in disappointment.
What the fuck Tarantino? No mystery, no comedy, no trademark dialogue, NO STORY! This movie relies on presupposed knowledge too much. I go into movies that I want to see without reading anything about them or watching any trailers. So if the movie takes until the final act to reveal what the mystery even is, and then subverts it within 10 minutes in a ridiculously, unnecessarily violent way, it doesn't make for an enjoyable movie. It was two hours of a red herring (if you know what it's about already), and then a half hour of "Is this movie seriously going to end without tying together any of these useless, boring storylines?"
First act: Tarantino's use of different film stocks, and his decision to start the movie by showing his version of a corny Oldwest show got me very excited for what was to come. During the first act however, he went back to this a bunch of times, and each time it was a little less enjoyable when it only started out as mildly humorous in the first place. the character development, and relationship between Pitt and DiCaprio was fun to watch. Other character development was pretty flat, and the Bruce Lee scene was just dumb. Pretty early in the movie I started to dislike Pitt's character. this obviously would detract me from enjoying him as the pseudo-hero later.
Second act: The Sharon Tate storyline was really starting to get to me. It's been years since I read about the Manson murders, so when I heard her name, I was thinking "that sounds familiar, I think there was something called the Sharon Tate murders. Maybe Brad Pitt is supposed to end up killing her or something." The more they were following Sharon Tate in her daily activities, the more I was thinking that she better be an important part of this movie or else I wasted about 45 minutes watching something that doesn't even matter.
The scene where Brad Pitt goes to the hippie hideout is easily the best in the movie. Even though at that point I didn't realize this was supposed to be a Manson thing, it was still a very intense scene. Had I known that this was a twist on the Manson family, it would have been a little more entertaining. So maybe Tarantino could have done SOMETHING to tell us this instead of just assuming that everyone is gonna watch every trailer and think that every hippie congregation is supposed to be the Manson family. This was the first time I was taken out the movie by the over-the-top violence inflicted on a character while everyone around me was laughing at it. And if you're supposed to think it's funny even if you don't know that they're supposed to be a murderous cult, then I don't know what the fuck is wrong with people.
Final act: I'm sitting in my seat, and all I can think is "this better be one hell of a third act to bring all these boring, useless storylines together." DiCaprio gets drunk and yells at some hippies. Pretty funny. Pitt takes his dog for a walk, and starts tripping on acid. Kinda funny. then for the first time in two hours, these hippie characters (that you're wondering why are even in the movie to begin with) FINALLY say something that shows they have a murderous leader. Then I start getting excited, finally connecting the dots, and thinking oh man this is gonna be a cool take on the Manson murders. And within five minutes I am not only disappointed by the climax, I am incredibly disappointed in my overall experience with the movie.
The hippie characters only deserved what they got in our real universe where they did the actions that they're know for. But in the movie universe, they were not responsible for these actions, and so their punishment was out of the blue and unwarranted. And if you don't know the real life story of these characters, I would expect that you would be disgusted by what happens, and how everybody is laughing around you in the theater. it was jarring in a way that other Tarantino violent scenes are not. he has made some of the most intensely violent scenes, but they are done for drama, for realism, or to get you disgusted with a character. This violence was done for humor, and I felt very out of place in the theater being the only one who was questioning why people are laughing at a dog ripping a guys genitals off, and then a girls face off while they're both screaming in horror. or apparently everybody's favorite was when the girl's face got smashed over and over into a coffee table until there was nothing left of it. everyone laughed the hardest at that part.
Either I missed something absolutely huge that changed my perception of this movie, or Tarantino has made a huge shift in his writing style, and the audience has made a huge shift in what is funny. Two movies ago Tarantino had a guy getting ripped apart by dogs, and it is one of the hardest scenes for anyone I know to get through, now it's funny because they committed murder in a different reality? I don't get it, I don't get the movie, and fuck you Tarantino for giving us two hours of nothing so you can give us 5 minutes of violence. I enjoyed the first time you did that in Death Proof, when it was actually entertaining. It's a real shame to add this movie to his near flawless career.
2 / 2 directing & technical aspect
0 / 1 story
.5 / 1 act I
1 / 1 act II
.5 / 1 act III
1 / 1 acting
1 / 1 writing
1 / 1 originality
0 / 1 lasting ability to make you think
-.5 / 1 misc (wtf?)
6.5 / 10
The first 90 minutes of this movie are absolutely fantastic. They build up Marla as such a despicable, horrid creature that I was actively begging for the Mafia to get sick revenge on her.
The last 30 minutes are Season 8 Game of Thrones level of terrible and ruin what was about to be one of my favorite movies this year. The steps they want to strain credibility were insane. Firstly her surviving after being drugged and put in the water were questionable. The mafia failing to kill her girlfriend was just...how in the world did they fail killing that girl?
Marla just fell in the water (and I'm not going into the 3 minutes she was able to kick in a glass front window underwater and maintain holding her breath), but she still has her wallet to buy things at the convenience store. She gets to her girlfriend literally just before the place blows up, which she had no control over because she literally waited for a taxi.
They complain that they have nothing left but the diamonds, and but they also apparently have a handy wig, a taser, some morphine knockout drugs to pull off some James Bond type of killing of Peter Dinklage. And then when Dinklage survives, he agrees to be her partner. Look, I get she's smart and was gonna kill it with the mafia. But the shit she did was unforgivable, and it strains my belief that Dinklage wouldn't just go out and torture her the first chance he gets. They did not present him as being a "money first" guy, so him overlooking the mother being thrown IN A PSYCHIATRIC WARD is nuts.
Look, I enjoyed 70% of this movie. It was an excellent horror thriller to that point. I would've loved if this movie went the route of Dinklage and the mob being mostly outsmarted by the crazy, maniacally, absolutely dastardly woman. But that movie NEEDED to end with Dinklage personally killing Marla. No if, ands or buts, anything but that ending ruins the point they spent the rest of the movie going for.
It really hurts me to trash this movie, because Pike was fantastic again in her role as a villain and Dinklage really made me want his character to succeed. But that ending was the worst type of cop out possible.
Denis Villenueve. A solid lineup. A different take on first contact. I loved Sicario but went in expecting a cerebral epic sci-fi.
That was a mistake.
Good things:
- Some really nice visual scenes
- Interesting aliens Calligraphy aliens!
- Clear theme of communication is omnipresent
- A neat score that might be awesome in a different movie
Bad things:
- The acting
- The lack of emotional reaction to ALIENS! The students asking to turn on the TV, all of the main characters
- Lack of useful characters Only the aliens and Louise actually did anything the entire movie.
- Supporting characters are very stupid in an attempt to foil the main character slightly
- Very clumsy exposition. Genre-typical news reports, voice-overs, dumb characters asking stupid questions.
- Very slow pacing. This worked in parts of Sicario, but didn't work in this movie because there was no tension. The main characters never seemed remotely threatened.
- Lousie showing up at school thinking everyone will be there after aliens arrive and there's a state of emergency
- Why can't you translate alien language like you can translate Farsi. This is a paraphrase but in the spirit of what Colonel Weber was saying.
- Useless love interest when the costars have no chemistry.
- Ultrasecure military base lets someone steal a ton of explosives and put it in an ALIEN SPACECRAFT without anyone noticing.
- Many unbelievable plot points
- Poor dialogue Let's make a baby - real quote
- Poor handling of the major plot points Looking through time seems to undermine the fact that the aliens need help. Why did one have to die if they could see the future? Why did only one die when they were right next to each other?
- Very heavy handed moral messaging that didn't align with the rest of the movie.
- Why couldn't Ian also see into the future as he studied the language, or any of the others?
Overall extremely disappointing. I'm honestly surprised critics or general moviegoers like this. The premise was very good. It's a real shame the execution failed so miserably.
A potentially great film being held hostage by its PG-13 rating and its messy, all over the places screenwriting.
By PG-13 I don't simply mean its visuals/goriness, but most importantly its dialogues, themes, and storytelling it tries to raise. Let me explain.
First, the dialogues.
The film opens with murder and Batman narrating the city's anxious mood. We get a glimpse of noir in this scene, but it soon falls flat due to a very uninteresting, plain, forgettable choice of words Batman used in his narration. Mind you, this is not a jab at Pattinson - Pattinson delivered it nicely. But there is no emotion in his line of words - there is no adjectives, there is no strong feelings about how he regards the city full of its criminals.
Here's a line from the opening scene. "Two years of night has turned me to a nocturnal animal. I must choose my targets carefully. It's a big city. I can't be everywhere. But they don't know where I am. When that light hits the sky, it's not just a call. It's a warning to them. Fear... is a tool. They think I am hiding in the shadows. Watching. Waiting to strike. I am the shadows." Okay? Cool. But sounds like something from a cartoon. What does that tell us about you, Batman?
Compare this to a similar scene uttered by Rorschach in Watchmen. "The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood. And when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. All those liberals and intellectuals, smooth talkers... Beneath me, this awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children, and the night reeks of fornication and bad consciences." You can say that Rorschach is extremely edgy (he is), but from that line alone we can tell his hatred towards the city, and even more so: his perspective, his philosophy that guides him to conduct his life and do what he does.
Rorschach's choice of words is sometimes verbose, but he is always expletive and at times graphic, making it clear to the audience what kind of person he is. Batman in this film does not. His words are always very safe, very carefully chosen, which strikes as an odd contrast to Pattinson's tortured portrayal of Batman as someone with a seemingly pent up anger. His choice of words is very PG-13 so that the kids can understand what Batman is trying to convey.
And this is not only in the opening scene. Throughout the film, the dialogues are written very plainly forgettable. It almost feels like the characters are having those conversations just to move the plot forward. Like that one encounter between Batman and Catwoman/Selina when she broke into the house to steal the passport or when Selina asked to finish off the "rat". They flow very oddly unnatural, as if those conversations are written to make them "trailer-able" (and the scenes indeed do appear on the trailer).
Almost in all crucial plot points the writers feel the need to have the characters to describe what has happened, or to explictly say what they are feeling - like almost every Gordon's scene in crime scene, or Selina's scene when she's speaking to Batman. It feels like the writers feel that the actors' expression just can't cut it and the audience has to be spoonfed with dialogues; almost like they're writing for kids.
Second, the storytelling.
Despite being a film about vengeance-fueled Batman (I actually like that cool "I'm vengeance" line) we don't get to see him actually being in full "vengeance" mode. Still in the opening we see Batman punching some thugs around. That looks a little bit painful but then the thugs seem to be fit enough to run away and Batman let them be. Then in the middle of the film we see Batman does something similar to mafias. Same, he just knocked them down but there's nothing really overboard with that. Then eventually in the car chase scene with the Penguin, Batman seem to be on "full rage mode", but over... what? He was just talking to Penguin a moment ago. The car chase scene itself is a bit pointless if not only to show off the Batmobile. And Batman did nothing to the Penguin after, just a normal questioning, not even harsher than Bale's Batman did to Heath's Joker in The Dark Knight - not in "'batshit insane' cop" mode as Penguin put it.
Batman's actions look very much apprehensive and controlled. Nothing too outrageous. Again, at odds with Pattinson's portrayal that seem to be full of anger; he's supposed to be really angry but somehow he still does not let his anger take the best of him. The only one time he went a bit overboard that shocked other characters is when he kept punching a villain near the end of the film. But even then it's not because his anger; it's because he injected some kind of drug (I guess some adrenaline shot). A very safe way to drop a parent-friendly message that "drug is bad, it can change you" in a PG-13 film.
And all that supposed anger... we don't get to see why he is angry and where his anger is directed at. Compare this to Arthur Fleck in Joker where it is clear as sky why Arthur would behave the way the does in the film. I mean we know his parents' death troubled him, but it's barely even discussed, not even in brief moments with Alfred (except in one that supposedly "shocking" moment). So... where's your vengeance, Mr. Vengeance? And what the hell are you vengeancing on?
Speaking of "shocking" moment... this is about the supposed Wayne family's involvement in the city's criminal affairs that has been teased early in the film. Its revelation was very anticlimactic: the supposed motive and the way it ended up the way it is, all very childish. If the film wanted the Wayne to be a "bad person", there's a lot of bads that a billionaire can do: tax evasion, blood diamond, funding illegal arms trade, fending off unions, hell, they can even do it the way the Waynes in Joker did it: hints of sexual abuses. But no, it has to be some bloody murder again, and all for a very trivial reason of "publicity". As if the film has to make it clear to the kids: "hey this guy's bad because he killed someone!" Which COULD work if the film puts makes taking someone's life has a very serious consequence. But it just pales to the serial killing The Riddler has done.
Even more anticlimactic considering how Bruce Wayne attempted to find a resolve in this matter only takes less than a 5 minute scene! It all involves only a bit of dialogues which boils down to how Thomas Wayne has a good reason to do so. Bruce somehow is convinced with that and has a change of heart instantly, making him looks very gullible.
And of course the ending is very weak and disappointing. First, Riddler's final show directly contradicts his initial goal to expose and destroy the corrupt elites. What he did instead is making the lives of the poor more difficult, very oxymoron for someone supposed to be as smart as him.
Second, the way Batman just ended up being "vengeance brings nothing and I should save people more than hurting people" does not get enough development to have him to say that in the end. Again - where's your vengeance? And how did you come to such character development if nothing is being developed on? And let's not get to how it's a very safe take against crime and corruption that closely resembles Disney's moralistic pandering in Marvel Cinematic Universe film.
Last, the visuals.
I'm not strictly speaking about gore, though that also factors in the discussion. The film sets this up as a film about hunting down a serial killer. But the film barely shows how cruel The Riddler can be to his victims. Again, back to the opening scene: we get it, Riddler killed the guy, but it does not look painful at all as it looks Riddler just knocked him twice. The sound design is very lacking that it does not seem what The Riddler done was conducted very painfully. Riddler then threw away his murder weapon, but we barely see blood. Yet when Gordon arrived to the crime scene, he described the victim as being struck multiple times with blood all over. What?
Similarly, when Riddler forced another victim to wear a bomb in his neck. The situation got pretty tense, but when the bomb eventually blow off, we just got some very small explosion like a small barrel just exploded, not a human being! I mean I'm not saying we need a gory explosion with head chopped off like in The Boys, but it does not look like what would happen if someone's head got blown off. Similarly when another character got almost blown off by a bomb - there's no burnt scar at all.
Why the hell are they setting up those possibly gory deaths and scars if they're not going to show how severe and painful these are? At least not the result - we don't need to see blood splattered everywhere - just how painful the process is. Sound design and acting of the actors (incl. twitching, for example) would've helped a lot even we don't see the gore, like what James Franco did in The 127 Hours or Hugh Jackman in Logan. In this film there's almost no tense at all resulting from those.
I'm not saying this film is terrible.
The acting, given the limited script they had, is excellent. Pattinson did his best, so did Paul Dano (always likes him as a villain), Zoe Kravitz, and the rest. Cinematography is fantastic; the lighting, angle, everything here is very great that makes a couple of very good trailers - perhaps one could even say that the whole film trades off coherency for making the scenes "trailer-able". The music is iconic, although with an almost decent music directing. And I guess this detective Batman is a fresh breath of air.
But all that does not make the movie good as in the end it's still all over the places and very PG-13.
Especially not with the 3 hours runtime where many scenes feel like a The Walking Dead filler episode.
If you're expecting a Batman film with similar gritty, tone to The Dark Knight trilogy or Joker, this film is not for you. But if you only want a live-action cartoon like pre-Nolan Batmans or The Long Halloween detective-style film, well, I guess you can be satisfied with this one.
Just to preface this, I thought A Force Awakens was emotionless trash that undermined the entire purpose of the original three films.
Rogue One was the opposite.
The best thing about this movie was the emotional impact. It underlined the sacrifices made to make the original trilogy possible. Some people have called it long, but that helped build up characters that you actually felt for, and who weren't carbon copy ripoffs (cough cough A Force Awakens). The final scenes as the two main characters face their fate, recognizing that it was worth it, gave such a high emotional payoff. Each major death scene actually made you feel something.
The second best thing was K-2SO. Very funny, and much needed comedic (but not goofy) relief.
The CGI for landscapes and the world creation was outstanding. When I see a movie like Star Wars I want to be amazed and see things that I haven't seen done before. I want to be impressed and drawn into new, beautifully crafted worlds. In this respect, the movie just kept delivering over and over.
The cinematography was great during the action sequences. The sequences looked epic, and the violence and sacrifice felt meaningful. The Vader fight sequence was intense.
It also had interesting ties to current events with its commentary on terrorism/rebellion/weapons of mass destruction. By the way, the science genius character realizing that he isn't priceless in developing some major device is fantastic. All of the movies with "only so-and-so can figure this out" are very disappointing.
The moral message of the movie was also very clear and well delivered.
I really enjoyed the movie overall and thought that it was a big step in the right direction. It was adventurous again, it was sometimes shocking, original, and most of all meaningful. A Force Awakens failed on all of those points. It's good to see a franchise movie that's taking a bit more risk than average. AFA was just like the new Star Trek films, shiny bling low-impact action movies that just happen to be set in space. Rogue One pushes far beyond to show the what drives the Rebellion in a world we know and love.
Despite the fact that I really liked the movie, it had some flaws:
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the acting in the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the cuts were really weird and the pacing felt off for portions of the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Forest Whittaker just deciding to die instead of trying to escape.
- Tarkin face CGI
- A few unbelievable plot lines (thankfully most were minor). Like Cassian being sent to kill Galen for almost no reason, and then deciding not to for no reason, and then Jyn forgiving him surprisingly easily. How did she even know that he was trying to kill her father?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Does every Star Wars movie need to have a father character die? Why didn't Cass follow orders when he heartlessly killed someone else in his first scene?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Heavy handed political messaging.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Said "hope" too many times.
- Tarkin face CGI
- You can just push Star Destroyers that easily?
- Tarkin face CGI
- The word "Stardust"
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too many random worlds introduced that you don't have the time to get invested in.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too much awkward fan service.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Darth Vader's voice sounded off.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the dialogue was really terrible.
- Tarkin face CGI
I don't get nearly as excited about the MCU as I used to (mostly because they're churning out movies and TV shows at a rate that I just can't keep up with), but I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Definitely worth watching.
Some loose thoughts/things I enjoyed below (spoilers are marked):
- the story is good, the 2nd act is kind of slow, but it picks up towards the end
- the fight scenes are super cool and creative (especially the one on the bus and the one on the scaffolding)
- I liked the way they utilized the rings in fights, it felt really fresh and like something we haven't seen before
- the final battle is actually awesome (monkey brain loves big monsters and explosions)
- the cast is excellent (I'm particularly thrilled to see Awkwafina getting more recognition)
- the soundtrack is beautiful and I love the way they used traditional Chinese melodies
- badass women all around (Michelle Yeoh my beloved)
- impeccable CGI
- some gorgeous scenery
- MORRIS
- loved the callback to the Mandarin mess from Iron Man 3
- Brie Larson cameo (I know the fandom has collectively decided to hate her, but I don't care, that was a treat for me and me only)
- Xialing effectively utilizing girl power by taking over her father's crime empire (I feel like there was definitely some comic book reference flying over my head there but who cares). My friend and I joked that she'll be getting a Disney+ series shortly
Overall, it was a treat. Strongly recommend.
I'm a huge fan of SF and AI based plots - I was really looking forward to seeing this but it was a frustrating disappointment. It has terrible horrible shamefully bad writing. Not a single original idea about AI and in fact they don't really deal with AI apart from robots basically being exactly like humans but nicer. No original futuristic sci-fi ideas either with a lot of the futuristic stuff not making any sense. For example the AIs speak to each other in English, no super fast data pours between them. They can't even speak remotely over cellular or whatever... they use walkie talkies lol. They had an old women robot that limped around though the robots do not age?!? I could have forgiven all of this in the 80s or from an adaptation of an Isaac Asinov novel but we're in 2023 and we've all watched the Matrix etc... Also it had very little action and the action sequences it did have were bad and boring with yellow lazer tracers zapping around in the near dark or fog. Visually it was ok and the score was decent but the poor writing completely ruined it for me. Half way through, I couldn't wait for it to end. You can't be a serious Sci-fi fan and think this is any good, it's just not possible... yes that's you good reviewers.
As much as I wanted to like this movie, and ESPECIALLY not wanting to throw shade on Dave Bautista, I'm afraid the words of none other than Macbeth are the most fitting as far as a review of this enterprise goes:
A.O.D. is but a walking shadow, some poor players
That strut and fret their two and a half hours upon the stage
And then are heard no more: It is a tale
Told by idiots, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
That having been said, the REAL shame here is, that, with just a little bit of re jiggering, and a little less stupidity on the part of any one of the panopoly of characters, and, this could have not only been an epic movie, but, possibly a even a (2 or 3 movie) franchise!
Any movie that starts from the jump with nekkid zombie stripper ta ta's is a go for me, just on the "Hmmm, I ain't seen THAT before factor alone. Now, throw in Siegfried and Roy's zombified Manticore' , and, you're going to hold my interest. Add super quick and agile "rage zombies, and a mix of your usual suspect "shufflin' and bitin' " zombies, as well as a full auto Drax the Destroyer, and a crew of mangey former tier one operators, who served their country honorably, but per current SOP, were promptly shat upon by the country that they so dutifully served, then, give them a chance to for once not just even the score but come out ahead, and, you HAD the basis for a pretty decent horror adventure flick.
But then SOMBODY had to go and try to grow a brain, perhaps thinking they could be "edgy", and, instead of delivering a fun, intelligent live action "Walking Dead" (first few seasons only), they decided to suck all the common sense from EVERY characters brain, and then have each one of them suddenly go mute at the most inopportune times, when a word, a note, or even a cryptic whisper, could keep someone from becoming zombie snackos'. Now add to that mix, a teenaged girl with one of the most full blown cases of narcissistic personality disorder ever witnessed on film, and have her played by an actor who every time she opens her mouth you just want to backhand her and send her to her room with no dinner. But, she's also a master of either guilting her father (team leader Scott Ward) for doing something she later admits "he had to do", or, forcing him to let her accompany the squad, (to "rescue the aforementioned STUPID friend) by threatening to run off and do it alone anyway, which is a certain one way trip. So, welcome to mercenary baby sitting, Z/A style.
All is not lost though as there are some nice bonding moments between Zen "man some of the shizz I've done" Vanderohe, and newbie merc / safecracker Ludwig Dieter, especially when it is discovered he doesn't even know Zombie 101 basics. Raul Castillos' "Mickey" who at first seems to be either a You Tube poser, or just a bit crazy, then actually turns out to be an honorable guy. Samantha Joe's "Chambers" is a formidable street fighter, but, sadly , her heroic last stand is wasted when in the end, she got a case of the mutes, when she could have saved the entire crew with a shouted warning.
Nora Arnezeder is believable as Lilly, The Coyote, even if she does let little miss prissy teen smack her around a bit, for helping another of Kates IDIOT friends do something stupid, that, in the end, does not bode well for the entire team. Tig Notaro I guess is OK, especially since she was a last minute "digital" substitute for Chris D'Elia, who was unceremoniously cancelled and erased from the movie due to misconduct of the sexual kind. It's not seamless, but, it's not distracting either. But, she too, got hit with the idiot stick at the last minute, and, her indecision literally was catastrophic. In BOTH their story arcs, Snyder chose to plagiarize, er, uh, be "inspired" by ENTIRE SCENES from "Aliens", then "edgily" flip the script, by declaring opposite day at their individual conclusions.
The longest walk of shame, IMO, goes to Bautista's character Scott Ward, for being either too blind of just plain dumb, to not see through the machinations of neither his Japanese Benefactor, nor his henchman sent along to fulfill the ACTUAL goal of the "heist". But, in his defense, a couple hundred million dollars tax free, can buy a mighty dark pair of rose colored glasses, and, even though he can't see the forest for the trees, nor, apparently when the passion fires of his former flame have burst into a bonfire. Her end was so telegraphed, that even as it occurred, you weren't really shocked, just saddened. Just as his end, and the way it came about, had one waiting for the sound track to cue up Alanis Morrissette, but, perhaps they couldn't get a music clearance..
ONE final chance at redemption comes in the form of the epilogue with Vanderohe, and, it could have played out the epic revenge scenario, but, alas it was not to be, and he, along with any chance at a sequel, was D.O.A.
So, in conclusion, I don't dislike this movie for it's short comings, but, because of it's unfulfilled potential. It didn't necessarily have to be all happily ever after, but, as you watch it, and the idiocy starts leaking out of the characters, see if you can glimpse the great movie that COULD have been.
Only in the most vague way is this related to Train to Busan. This is a zombie movie based in South Korea set 4 years after the outbreak we saw in Train to Busan. I can admit that Seoul Station wasnt that good either, but at least they tried even with the choppy animation.
But here they go full ham on terrible, terrible CG and law-breaking physics. 4 years of disuse and the cars work, the roads are totally clear, there is electricity and functioning machinery. It just can't be.
This movie is clearly targeted towards fans of the original because there are some lines in English, awful awful cheesy dialogue that belittles the experience of living in a zombie infested wasteland and just contextually makes no sense at all.
And everyone in this movie is ugly and mentally insane. I liked Captain Seo, great character that makes sense, but Hwang is just bad to be bad. The military went full evil and now they're doing death matches. You also can't start a movie with heart wrenching scenes and expect us to care about the characters. Motivation for the main group also isn't really developed or explained and only really is justified by a flashback or singular line here and there.
All the English casting also makes no sense. I just can't understand why this film was made this way.
Large sections of the movies are completely in CG, they're actually awful and they look so bad. Skip this film, it just ain't worth it.
[6.2/10] Bombshell plays like a second rate Adam McKay film. It has the same direct addresses to the audience, the same straightforward explanation and table-setting for the situation at hand, and the same “period piece for the recent past” vibe of movies like The Big Short and Vice. But what it’s missing is the humor.
In theory, that shouldn’t be a big deal. Institutionalized sexual harassment, the subject of the film, isn’t a laughing matter. But part of what made the artifice of McKay’s more sober films work is that they approached the insane events they cover with a touch of absurdism, a touch of “Can you believe these people?”, that helps make the more contrived or didactic parts of the presentation go down smoother. Even star Margot Robbie’s turn in “I, Tonya” managed to balance the real, piercing emotional toll and topics at play with a certain awareness of the ridiculous.
Bombshell, on the other hand, is a deeply serious film, one that drowns in its own efforts to be an Important Film about Important Things:tm:. It is as breathless as it is airless. So many moments of the film are laden with melodrama and monologues. Despite a vaguely cinema verite approach stylistically (give or take some odd, dramatic zooms), the film has a stagey quality to it, with most of its characters pausing to capital-A Act and deliver conspicuously curated points or exposition about whatever the issue at hand is. For a story about something so real and pernicious, Bombshell almost always feels like it’s holding its story at arm’s length.
Except in the rare instances where it doesn't. Director Jay Roach centers Bombshell around the stories of three women. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) has conspicuously pensive scenes and corny, dramatic pronouncements as the established anchor deciding whether or not to break ranks and publicly come out against her boss. Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) plays the crusading host, forced out due to sexism, with scores of exasperated close-ups and even direct appeals to the camera. Both cram complex stories into broadly familiar tropes.
But the film shakes off its more cartoonish impulses more often in the story of Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), a young aspiring reporter who dreams of an on-air position and finds herself ensnared in her boss’s harassment to get there. It’s in this story and this story alone that Bombshell dials into something more real.
There’s genuine camaraderie and complexity to the relationship between Kayla and her secretly-liberal-and-lesbian best friend at Fox News, Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon, who all but steals the show), as both balance legitimate empathy with the need for self-preservation. Robbie plays the shock and hardship of her position with piercing truth. And in the scene where the film depicts Kayla’s harassment is also its realest, scariest, and most uncomfortable. That sequence, where Kayla is forced to submit to her bossess’s perverse, powerplay whims, feels gross and and frighteningly true in a way so little of the rest of the film does.
Part of that comes down to the performances. The cast is star studded, with even the bit parts fulfilled by a who’s who of outstanding character actors. But since most portray real life individuals, their turns are often reduced to impressions or exaggerations. And even those that don’t have the cheesiness of speechifying and Oscar reel oratories with the players making very obvious and loud acting choices that takes the punch out of whatever true emotion they’re trying to convey.
The exceptions mostly come down to Robbie (who still suffers from some of the film’s monologism), McKinnon, and strangely enough, John Lithgow as the odious Fox News impresario Roger Ailes. If there’s any character in this film liable to come off so over-the-top that he almost floats away, it’s Ailes -- the paranoid, perverted, power-grabbing news gremlin who’s made so many of these women’s lives a living hell. But Lithgow, acting under an impressive set of prosthetics, somehow manages to make this man as bombastic and repulsive as he ought to be, while also making him seem like a real human being with his own self-justifying delusions and terrifying impulses. The film’s most dramatic villain is, strangely, also one of it’s most lived in performances.
But every actor in the film has to overcome the script. Eventually the film coalesces around decisions among its three main characters over whether to come forward about Ailes’s harassment. But until that point, it stumbles around as a series of vignettes organized around a theme more than any sort of unified narrative. Meanwhile, the film is trying to explicate that theme with overtly didactic dialogue, grand speeches about What This All Means, and lingering shots of the characters’ daughters that all but scream “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!” at the audience.
The film’s message -- about workplace harassment and the institutional rot that preserves it -- is a noble one, but also one lost in those choices. As a dramatized piece of quasi-journalism, it lacks punch to anyone who’s read even the barest of headlines about this situation over the past five years. As an effort to persuade, it suffers from the fact that 95% of people liable to even see the film most likely already agree with its points. As an effort to preserve this moment and this fight for history, it falters by only glancingly grappling with the bile that personalities like Kelly and Carlson spewed on a regular basis before joining this crusade.
With that, Bombshell feels like a high class T.V. movie, one that hopes it can wow you with its over-the-top presentation, celebrity performances of known personalities, and nod-worthy arguments. Occasionally, it grazes profundity and drills down into something real. But for the most part, it holds the audience’s hand through every theme, performance, and emotion in the piece, with a dour realism that belies its clearly dramatized presentation of these events.
There’s few laughs, if any, to be had about powerful creeps wrecking the lives of the women beneath them. But when Bombshell adopts the McKay approach in telling this story, it misses that key ingredient which makes the more constructed elements of McKay’s movies work without eliciting eye-rolls. Without it, Roach’s attempt at the same without that wry lens comes off more like an on-the-nose, visual essay so scared that its audience won’t understand its blaring ideas and argument that it practically has characters announce them, and misses the core tragedy and realness of what its subjects suffered in the process.
Contains major spoilers !!!!!
Huge and utterly dissapointing. After TFA I said this movie would make or break the story. For me it broke.
Where to begin? Let´s start with my biggest problem.
After that rebel cruisers bridge was hit and Leia was thrown into space we saw her drifting in the cold empty vacuum of space. This was a powerful scene and I had tears welling up in my eyes thinking that would be a great ending for the character dying how she always lived. Fighting. I did not realise, or care, that it would have been a huge coincidence had they written this scene at that point not knowing Carrie would pass away. But as I said powerful scene. And then she opens her eyes and floated back into the ship still beeing alive. At that point I was seriously considering leaving the cinema. It´s scifi but, please, without as much as a hint of an explanation that is just awful writing. It is Disney all over it. Anyway I stayed and watched the rest but in general I was done with the movie.
There are tons of other things I didn´t like.
way to much unnessesary and stupid humor. Most of the time it does not fit and just destroys scenes. Holding for General Hux - that might have been OK once but two or three times it just becomes goofy. And there is more of this througout the movie.
the writing was all over the place. So much things going on that do little to nothing for the general plot and just add playtime. Like that whole thing with the codebreaker, going to the casino. Just sugarcoating CGI.
and speaking of playtime - way too long. About five times towards the end I thought it was over. It could have ended when the reached the rebel base- no let´s add another battle. When they realised they where trapped. With Luke going out to face Kylo. At some point I would have been OK with the movie ending with the First Order defeating the rebels, everyone dying, and the franchise done with. But of course that is not happening and the movie ends.....no, just show us a kid with a broom looking at the stars and indicate he could be the hero of a future movie.
in many ways the continuation of storylines is not satisfiying. They introduce Snoke in the first movie without an explanation who he is, where he comes from and how he got there. Would have been OK, could have done later. So now he´s dead without so much as a fight and there are questions left to be answered.
what about Rey ? Are we really to believe her parents were some drunk and drifting scavengers that sold her for money like Ren said ? That would be very stupid because how in the universe could she master the Force in ways even the best Jedis or Sith couldn´t without as much as years of training. Another void in the storytelling.
too many, shall I call them, homage scenes ? A lot of times I felt I had already seen this movie. The scene in the throne room f.e. Snoke = Emperor, Rey = Luke, Ben = Vader, the destruction of the rebel fleet playing in the background and the Ben killing Snoke is like Vader killing the Emperor. I know that was said about TFA as well but I feel it´s much worse here. The Battle of Hoth reviseted would be another thing where they re-did some scenes to a T. All that was left was tow cables.
Those are just some examples of the things I disliked and maybe there could be satisfactory explanation later. There is a lot more but it would take too much time to write it down. But I doubt I will go to the cinema for the next one.
To be fair there where some positives in this movie.
I liked the scenes with Rey and Luke althought they did not really lead anywhere. But some nice insights into Lukes story after ROTJ.
The conversations between Kylo and Rey where very interesting and I thought there was really potential to steer the story to something new and exciting. Not happening.
So overall I was not satisfied. I really like TFA, it built some expectations that where all crushed with this. As far as I am concerned I am done with this new story. I am not not very eager to find out what else the canibalise and how they try to write themselves out of this. There is nothing left.
This is my view of the movie. If you liked it I´m happy for you.
May the Force be with us. Always.
A not-so original sci-fi feature that punches above its weight class in terms of spectacle and world building, but is lacking in the writing department more often than not. Way too many examples of ham-fisted, on-the-nose dialogue, as characters bluntly tell the protagonist how high the stakes are, how important the child is, or any number of other expositional dumps. The high-level story is also rife with clichés, with the central arc feeling familiar to the point of predictability. Now, there are moments that land effectively. I would specifically call out the early interactions between Joshua and Alphie as being among the strongest of the film. But those moments are few and far between, as a lot of the more ambitious emotional beats feel rushed and/or forced. On top of that, it seems like delivering spectacle was perhaps overly prioritized, as many sequences don't hold up to even the most surface level logical scrutiny, resulting in a lot of eye-rolling, head scratching, and ultimately the death of suspension of disbelief (e.g., suicide bomb robots seem silly when you've got a massive tank shooting precise missiles that are shown to be more effective, or standby mode somehow fooling an army of scientists, or Nomad seemingly being in multiple places at once in the final sequence). Admittedly, those types of complaints are nitpicky, and if the dialogue and big picture story had landed better, I think they would be easily forgiven. Not to mention, as I said initially, the visuals are fantastic. The Nomad's eerie beam of blue light is unique and memorable. The contrast of futuristic robots in a rural Asian setting offers plenty of striking visuals. I have no doubt that Gareth Edwards got incredible bang for his buck, stretching his $80 million budget to look on par with films that cost twice that. But in the end, the whole is less than the sum of its parts, with all of the fantastic visuals and handful of strong ideas combining into a package that was just okay.
Rian Johnson is starting to turn into the white Jordan Peele. He's another one of those filmmakers that loves to work in this niche of subversive genre films that include a heavy dose of social commentary, and I'm all here for it. Specifically, with this franchise we’ve gone from satirizing old money with Knives Out to satirizing new money with this new film (chances are Knives Out 3 will center around a group of homeless suspects). Now, a lot of films in that same vein have been released recently (Triangle of Sadness, The Menu), but I think none of them do the satire as well as this film. To me it’s too easy at this point to simply aim your commentary at these people by making a statement about how stupid and incompetent they are. It seems like low hanging fruit to me, because everyone with a brain knows that these types are vapid and contribute nothing to society. Luckily, Rian Johnson understands this too and goes one step beyond that, filtering all of his commentary through this idea of the glass onion. These people aren’t just stupid and incompetent, but they’re using a veil of eccentricity and ‘complexity’ to hide that. This is a brilliant deconstruction that rings very true for today’s society, and of course you can’t quite escape the obvious parallel with Twitter’s manchild CEO firing himself this week. This subtext is woven into a lot of elements of the film (character, location, plot, even some props), which means that some things are a lot dumber and simpler than they appear to be. I think that will annoy some people, but I think it's quite clever. Like the first film, you get a great cast of colourful characters. Some of them are given depth, some of them are just playing funny caricatures. Daniel Craig owns the whole movie again, but Janelle Monáe comes pretty close to outperforming him. Even people like Dave Bautista do a great job, and it’s because Rian Johnson knows how to use these actors despite their limited range. There are plenty of twists you won’t see coming and the filmmaking is again terrific. It looks very cinematic with the blocking, lighting and compositions, and the score feels very 60s (lots of strings, some minor baroque orchestration), which reminded me of The White Lotus and a certain Beatles song. In the end, what puts it over the first film for me is the fact that the tone feels more consistent here. The more tense and dramatic moments of Knives Out didn’t really hit home for me when you have Daniel Craig doing a really campy accent, and this one just fully embraces that it’s a silly comedy. And it’s a great one at that, nearly all the jokes landed for me. Maybe could’ve done with a little less shouting from Kate Hudson, but ok, it makes sense for the character. Probably the most fun movie of the year next to Top Gun: Maverick, and definitely one of the most well constructed.
8/10
If you’re just interested in well choreographed and edited action sequences: see it. Also, kudos to convicingly pulling off the Will Smith clone (minus his final scene), something which must’ve been extremely hard to do given that he’s constantly moving around during the action sequences. However, the story of this film feels very paint-by-numbers and uses way too much exposition on top of that. The set-up takes a lot from The Bourne Identity, minus the memory loss. That’s not inherently a bad thing, but this has none of the interesting characterization, pace or grit from a Bourne film on top of that. Stylistically, there’s a glossiness and fakeness to it all. Everything is overlit, it ocassonially looks like characters are standing in front of green screen (which I’m pretty sure they aren’t), and there’s a fluidity to the movement during the action scenes which makes it look like animation. I don’t know how much of that is a result of the special cameras they used, and how much comes from bad CGI/cinematography/lighting, but I do know that not all of the innovation here is also an improvement.
4/10
Ps:
If you’re someone who loves motion smoothing and oversaturated colours on your tv system—> watch it in HFR
If you have taste —> don’t watch it in HFR.
So obviously, I had to see Lady Bird being the RT/MC snob that I am with a weakness for these independent films. Since it had a 100% RT fresh and 94% MC rating, I had to see what was all the fuss. I definitely enjoyed the film quite a bit and it definitely hit home with a lot of the emotional life situations the protagonist Lady Bird goes/stumbles through (even though I'm a guy). Saoirse Ronan has always been one of my favorite actresses and she kills it here. Her chemistry with Laurie Metcalf, who plays her tough loving and, at times, overly critical mother is fantastic and their relationship forms one of the major cruxes of the film.
The story is essentially about a girl learning (the hard way many times) what is truly important to her in this world (and, more specifically, in the town of Sacramento) and realizing to not take for granted what she has even though she is coming from an unideal situation. However, this theme is explored in a funny, witty and non-pretentious manner to the viewer that allows you to really relate and sympathize with the protagonist (while chuckling along as well). So many times, I was like "ohhhh man, that is just not a good decision, but I totally did the same stupid thing when I was younger..." moments that just really resonated with me throughout. It's a coming-of-age story that really progresses the protagonist but by using what seems like "common and mundane" life events that we've all undoubtedly experienced before at one point of our lives. They took a lot of cliche coming-of-age scenarios (gay boyfriend, going to a Catholic school, confronted by a nun, etc) but put a nice and realistic spin on them different from other movies. This relatability is what really sold the film for me.
In a short time, the viewer experiences a profound yet truly realistic and believable transformation of the protagonist, Lady Bird. I am reminded of another movie, The Edge of Seventeen, that I watched last year and didn't really enjoy or connect with, where the main female character undergoes a similar "journey", but I felt like I could connect (and, thus, sympathize) far more with Saoirse Ronan's complicated and stumbling character than Hailee Steinfeld's edgey for-the-sake-of-being-edgey interpretation of her protagonist.
Anyway, I really enjoyed this movie, and highly recommend giving it a shot. I think that it will really resonate with viewers who have experienced some financial and social difficulties at some point in life, and have gone through the embarrassing pains and those seemingly obvious and avoidable mistakes when trying to "grow up".
Like a conservative senator with his wife, this movie says being a mother is the hardest job in the world but only so he can continue making her life a living hell.
There's a lot to love about this movie... Just kidding, there's only one thing and that's the incredible tsunami of talent that is Laure Calamy.
In À plein temps / Full Time, she plays of the single mother of two and the director really hates her because he basically throws shit at her for 90 minutes until she drowns in it.
The frantic pace of the film lends an easy comparison to Uncut Gems (Unka Jams!) but that turns out to be erroneous because the Safdie brothers genuinely like Howard Ratner. They let him catch some breaks, allow him some optimistic moments, and sincerely want good things to happen to him. It's not the Safdies fault that things turn out for Howard the way they do.
On the other hand, in Full Time, the constant onslaught of suffering Julie has to confront and the total absence of hope mean the film resembles less Uncut Gems than it does A Serbian Film. In fact, I 100% bet the director wanted to call this movie A Serbian Femme but no one would let him.
Watch this movie so you can appreciate Laure Calamy's stunning performance, but don't be afraid to call out the faux feminist message. This is not a tribute, it's a eulogy.
[8.3/10] Zombie movies have a long history of social commentary and symbolism. Auteurs like George Romero have used the undead to represent prejudice, consumerism, blind loyalty, and scads of other social ills made manifest in horrific terms. That’s one of the features of this particular subgenre -- the concept of brainless, shambling former humans is malleable enough to fit around any number of concepts and themes.
In Shaun of the Dead Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg use it for something much more mundane -- the layabout manchild who’s failed to launch. For once the hordes of reanimated corpses are less about some wide-ranging societal malady, and more about one dude who needs the zombie apocalypse to prompt him to “sort his life out.” It’s subtle, but the movie kicks off with the idea that Shaun is no better than the living dead he’ll eventually do battle with, having failed to advance his life, work, or motivation to where he’s stuck in the same rut at 29 that he was at 12.
That conceit is part of the brilliance of Shaun of the Dead, which comes from the way it so perfectly walks the line between loving homage to the zombie films of old, ridiculous comedy amid a ridiculous setup, and surprisingly potent character drama about one man coming of age late in the day but just in time. It juggles these competing demands nigh-perfectly, with Wright and Pegg putting together an astonishingly well-tuned film that manages thrills, laughs, poignance, and most of all tone along a viscera-draped tightrope.
It works on all counts. Fans of the classic undead flicks will chuckle and cheer with recognition when one of the characters declares “We’re coming to get you, Barbara” or when a pest of a survivor is pulled out of a window a la Day of the Dead. The approach here presages Community’s stellar genre parodies, where there is so much loving attention to detail that it bolsters both the times when the film wants to play the familiar story beats safe and when it wants to poke fun at them.
That knowing approach to the “zomcom” works like gangbusters. Shaun and Ed’s reluctance to use “the z-word” is a fun meta-gag about how rarely the famed designation is actually spoken aloud in zombie movies. The invocation of common tropes like the survivor who tries to hide that they’ve been bit, the group having to pretend they’re zombies to avoid detection, or a character having to face down an undead version of a loved one is played for both laughs and pathos. This is clearly a movie whose creatives are deeply familiar with the genre they’re spoofing, paying tribute to, and using for compelling character beats, which is what allows them to mix and match those moods so deftly.
At the same time, Pegg and Wright are not afraid to get downright goofy with the proceedings. Watching Shaun and Ed ineffectively toss household detritus at a pair of walkers while arguing over which records to use as ammo is a big laugh. Their crew whacking at an advancing attacker to the beat of a Queen song is delightfully silly. And the life and death stakes of the scenario don’t stop the main character or his pals from dropping wry bits of gallows humor or loopy routines in between encounters with the flesh-eating monsters.
Of course, this is an Edgar Wright movie, so the script plays out like clockwork. Brief mentions of Di as a “failed actress” come back into play when she has to coach up the survivors to act like zombies. A hinted at but unseen skirmish in the second act comes back in a big way in the third act. Video game terminology turns into vital (and amusing) real world strategy. Off-hand quips pre-outbreak become meaningful portents once the undead invasion is in full swing. Wright is the king of setup and payoff, so there’s hardly a stray comment or visual framing that doesn't come back with a twist or an echo or an extra laugh down the line.
Wright’s also a superb sculptor of sequences and images. Some of them are flashy, like a neat shot of our heroes through the hollowed-out hole in a zombie torso, but some are more subtle, like a tableau of the survivors in the Winchester that positions everyone neatly in the frame. He and his team do well to establish long, well-blocked shots of Shaun going about his daily life, only to mirror and recontextualize those scenes once the extras of his routine have turned into zombies. And as with everything in this film, Wright and company are able to walk the line between humor and excitement with the action scenes, evoking some genuine terror when the biters advance on the survivors and our heroes fight back, but also leaning into the lunacy of a random London schlub wacking at corpses with a cricket bat.
But so much of that excellent attention to detail comes back around when Shaun of the Dead wants to play things seriously and isn’t just having a laugh. Barbara’s mantra that she “doesn't want to make a fuss” becomes much more meaningful after she’s hiding a zombie bite and Shaun has to contend with the reality that his mom’s going to die. A running gag where Shaun replies to any invocation of his stepfather, Philip, with a retort of “he’s not my dad,” takes on new, poignant meaning after Philip’s dying declaration of love before succumbing to the zombie virus. Pegg and Wright use their call and response, and their tightly-honed scene construction, to pay homage to George Romero’s filmography and to craft their own silly sequences, but they also use it for genuine pathos, for affecting drama, and most importantly, for character growth.
That puts Shaun of the Dead in line with so many of its undead flick forebears that the movie pokes fun at and pays tribute to. These movies lured audiences in with the prospect of monster mash horror, but lingered in people’s memories because of vivid characters and because of a social subtext reflected in all those shuffling corpses. This movie will absolutely work for anyone just wanting a good time involving ample chuckles and some zombified comic adventures.
But it also uses the oncoming zombie apocalypse as a metaphor for Shaun waking up and growing up. The key scene of the film comes when Philip tells Shaun that he always thought Shaun had it in him to do great things; he just needed the right motivation. There’s comic irony to the fact that this motivating turning point happens to be the reanimation of corpses from the grave, but Wright and Pegg don’t skimp on using that fact to tickle the audience’s funny bone at the same time they cannily show a slacker manchild growing up in real time beneath a blood-spattered cricket bat.
In an ideal world, none of us would need a zombie uprising to take the initiative and turn around our lives. But Shaun of the Dead has its title character accept adulthood in all that mandibular mania -- reckoning with his best friend, having to say goodbye to his parents, and becoming a true and reliable partner to the woman he loves. Few coming of age stories, if any others at all, pay such brilliant homage to classic horror films, elicit such genuine laughs from blood-spattered slapstick, or make the human drama so real and even moving. And yet for this shuffling subgenre, the approach and success are remarkably true-to-form.
This movie is pretty bad. Not because of the concept or the leads or anything of the sort. Because of the script and directing.
I want to state that all the lead actresses here are fantastic and really held the film together. They really made me want more out of this despite it falling apart on the story side. I like their chemistry and the emotion they brought to the screen.
I did not however enjoy the predictable plot and stupid writing that they gave these characters. It hurts how much the script brought this movie down. They did not give valid reasons for certain things that I felt could have used more explanation, and instead wasted the exposition on needless things in the latter half of the film. They could have resolved this movie halfway but didn't because... I don't know, they didn't tell me why they couldn't. No explanations for the things that matter in the plot.
The shakey-cam too in the action scenes was terribly uncomfortable to watch. It gets some good wide shots of the action, but it cuts way too soon to take it in. There were some elements of the fights I liked but just not as many to make a good action/spy film. Not to mention the fact that the ending is so bad, not because it builds to another film. But because it leaves me questioning the motives of the characters.
Overall, this film is a mess from behind the camera, because I wanted more of this team. But I doubt we will get to see them again from this poor first attempt.
3/10
[8.3/10] We live in an age where anything you can imagine may be conjured up through the magic of CGI and green screen technology. There’s no place our heroes can’t visit, no foe they can’t fight, and no images that can’t be summoned in the process. By dint of spectacle alone, modern films should be able to awe, thrill, and grip us more than anything that predates such technological innovations.
And yet, the quiet miracle of Alfred Hitchcock’s filmography is that he can make the comparatively mundane feel like the most captivating, ominous, seat-gripping thing in the world. Strangers on a Train is not exactly a down-to-earth story. It involves a murder, and a mentally unbalanced homicidal stalker, and a minor celebrity caught in a web of bad luck and bad choices.
Despite that, though, it’s a lower tempo movie more often than not, more apt to string the audience along with the looming possibility of things going terribly wrong than pull the trigger on the fireworks. The movie lives in the tension of protagonist Guy Haines realizing a murder’s been committed in his name, fearing the consequences of who might get to him first: Bruno Antony or the law. The movie spends most of its runtime with the noose slowly tightening, more and more little things going wrong, until the release of all that stress in the film’s climax is as much a relief as it is cathartic.
What’s striking is how Hitchcock achieves that tension and transposes it onto so many seemingly prosaic activities. The juxtaposition of one man trying to finish a tennis match and another trying to fish a lighter out of a storm drain is the most suspenseful thing in the world when each is racing against time to pin a murder on the other. The mere presence of an unwanted visitor leering in the distance from the Jefferson Memorial chills the blood. And a runaway carousel ride at a local carnival has more cinematic electricity than all the CGI explosion-fests the world over.
It’s a cliché at this point to call Hitchcock the master of suspense. Still, the honorific is earned not just by the results on the screen, but by what common tools he uses to make them. The drama here is human, and the stakes are personal rather than earth-shaking, which allows the threats and possible calamities to be human-sized too. By keeping that focus on the small, the intrusions of the threatening and ominous feel that much larger, that much more likely to make you dig your fingers into the armrest, than stories and foes that are nominally bigger and scarier.
And there are few cinematic villains scarier than Bruno Antony. It’s a fantastic performance from Robert Walker who commands the screen every time he steps into the frame. What makes Bruno so terrifying is, again, the unremarkableness of him. Sure, he’s mentally unwell, having cooked up this famed “criss-cross” scheme and harboring no shortage of mommy and daddy issues. But he’s also someone who can pass, at least briefly, in polite company, whom you wouldn’t blink twice at if you walked by him on the street, who is a figure that would fade into the woodwork if you didn’t know what to look for.
Yet, he’s utterly terrifying. Hitchcock and director of photography Robert Burks see to that. Antony’s placid demeanor turns utterly menacing when he’s the only one staring amid a crowd of head-bobbers watching a tennis ball lobbed back and forth. He moves like a shark through a local carnival, pursuing Guy’s wife with an unnerving smile and steady gait. His run-of-the-mill small talk turns bizarre and disturbing if you let him get wound up long enough. A simple look from him sends Guy’s would-be sister-in-law into a panic. The superficially normal man spooks like a phantom when he’s framed in shadow or leans out of the darkness. The film’s grandest achievement may be turning a clever but simple man into an abjectly frightening cinematic creation.
That said, at the risk of being deemed one of Hitchcock’s hated “plausibles” -- people who question when a movie strays too far from reality -- there’s elements of Strangers on a Train that strain credulity.
The movie handwaves away the possibility that the two gentlemen who were with Guy’s wife at the carnival when she was killed would be treated as suspects. Guy’s girlfriend and her family advise him to act like everything’s normal despite the fact that the public would probably expect him to be at least a little emotional given the news of his wife’s demise, even if their relations were strained. And the police officer at the end seems pretty blasé about not searching Bruno for the engraved lighter that might at least partly exonerate Guy simply because Bruno claims he doesn’t have it.
Maybe there’s a cultural disconnect from American society now versus how these things might have been treated seventy years ago, but suffice it to say, they strike the modern viewer as profoundly odd reactions to what is admittedly a profoundly odd situation.
Regardless, that’s part of the unwitting charm of Strangers on a Train. For such a tightly-wound film, it has these funny little human moments that make it feel real. Amid Hitchcock’s trademark brilliant compositions and framings, built to let the images tell the story and build the tension, he injects these small interludes that serve no purpose but wonderful texture.
A hayseed bystander pesters Bruno and responds to a kiss off with, “So I’m not educated.” The police commandeer an old dowager’s car only to find she’s thrilled to be part of such drama. A small boy on the runaway carousel decides to interject himself into the struggle between Guy and Bruno like it’s a playground scuffle. Amid a high concept story, these little doses of well-observed reality and humor bring it home.
It’s in keeping with the way all this cinematic anxiety laid bare, all these tense moments stacked on top of one another, spin out from such humble beginnings. Bruno experiences a raft of good luck, running into a person famous enough that he can know the man’s troubles, with the time and resources to pursue his dreadful plan, and have enough things break in his favor, like the lack of a reliable alibi for his counterpart, to give him leverage.
And the reverse is true for Guy. From the simple act of running into one weirdo in a train car, his whole life is upended and nearly ruined. Words not meant seriously but spoken in anger tie him to the crime. A forgotten lighter gives his foil the chance to plant evidence. A fellow passenger’s intoxication deprives him of his alibi. So much goes wrong for Guy, that the viewer wonders what they would do in his situation, forced into a scenario where he’s innocent but cannot help but seem guilty to a neutral observer.
That central underlying tension -- between truth and falsity, between what really happened and what others would believe, between assauging and dangerous man and confronting him whatever the consequences -- fuels the film. Strangers on the Train is an unsettling take on the “For Want of a Nail” story, where one accidental shoe scuff leads to multiple deaths, veritable blackmail, and several more lives hanging in the balance.
Guy learns his lesson by the end of the movie, but it’s a lesson for filmmakers writ large at the same time. Sometimes the most terrifying, tense, and thrilling things emerge from the smallest sources. It’s a tribute to Hittcock’s virtuosity, and his team’s superlative efforts in an age before computer-generated sorcery, that they could make a chance meeting on the railway, and the sparks and consequences that unspooled from two distinctive but recognizable men, loom as large as anything their successors would awe audiences with half a century down the line.
After seeing several people on SM recommend that it be seen in Spanish if possible, I waited until I could find a theater nearby that was showing it. I am estatic that I saw it in Spanish. It was an amazing treat to see it in the language that the characters would have spoken. The spanish language voice actors are all Mexican, giving the film it's final seal of authenticity that the english language is missing (though this is not a negative critique of the english language cast, but rather an extra treat of the spanish language version).
The film is a heartfelt tribute to the tradition of The Day of the Dead, part of the cultural heritage of Mexico and it's indigenous roots. The film shows the time and care the producers, writers and director took in staying true to and understanding this celebration as observed in Mexico, from the offerings to the dead, the significance of the vibrant marigolds, and the love and gathering with our ancestors and family.
Yes, Coco follows the tradition of all Pixar movies, with a focus on love, family and friendship. The difference this time is that it places Mexico, its culture and its people, at the center of the story.
Started out alright, a bit different from usual Marvel movies. Continued to be alright, though definitely had its issues, but then the third act turned into a generic, uninspiring superhero movie. I liked Florence Pugh as Yelena, and I think she'll be good in the MCU going forwards. I was never particularly a fan of the Black Widow character, and I always felt that she was a bit out of place in the main Avengers line-up (same with Hawkeye). I'll feel the same if Yelena is put into that role, but at least she seems to have a bit more charm/sass to her that I think I'd rather have. I had mixed feelings about David Harbour's character. On one hand, I quite liked him, and I found him amusing. But I was annoyed that he was only ever used as comic relief and never really got a moment to shine. A lot of the action in this movie feels quite silly, and the main characters have really ridiculous plot armour, surviving horrible car wreck after car wreck. It makes sense when someone like Captain America survives these situations, but when a regular woman with literally zero super powers or physical enhancements survives, it's downright annoying. It's a superhero movie, I get it, it's not supposed to be over the top realistic. But this was just too much.
Overall, the movie wasn't a bad way to spend two hours. It was alright, and it's nice to see the Black Window character get her own movie as a sendoff. Just don't expect anything more than a generic action flick.
One of Disney's classics, though after seventy-five years its reputation may have outpaced the film itself. After the financial disappointments of Pinocchio and Fantasia a year earlier, the studio tightened its belt on Dumbo in an attempt to make up for the losses. It worked in one sense, giving Disney the box office victory it needed, but that penny-pinching and corner-cutting hurt the finished product.
It's astonishingly short, barely weighing in at an hour including credits, which forces a sudden, jarring climax. The story's pace is quite smooth until then, taking its time to build characters and back-story, so by contrast the immediate rush to wrap everything up in a frenzied flash is disruptive. While it's cruising along in the first half, though, things are good enough. Speckled with colorful characters and a fresh circus setting, it bottles that classic, emotive Disney magic while still taking a few risks. The infamous pink elephant scene, in particular, is an unexpectedly surreal animator's playground that's several decades ahead of the curve. I was shocked to find offbeat similarities Danny Elfman's work in the film's score, too, which may suggest an even broader influence.
Playful and heartfelt, though deeply under-cooked, Dumbo feels like a breezy short story when compared to the richer, more complete films elsewhere in the studio's early catalog.
So we reach the end of Phase Three, and what an ending this is. Not as epic in scale as Endgame and not as good as it either. But, this to me, is better than Homecoming. Better arcs, a better realisation of character and overall an excellent way to represent story through visuals.
For some Mysterio has been poorly represented in recent media. But here, he is done so well and the abilities are Doctor Strange visuals of good. While still not copying anything we've seen yet. This allows for great tension and using trust against the characters that I don't think has been seen in the MCU since The Winter Soldier.
Tom Halland is Spider-Man. There's no denying it, he was born for this role as Robert Downey Jr was for Iron Man. Which makes this story sink so well into the narrative when it all comes down to loss and how to avoid falling into stress and anxiety's grip. Which makes this an important movie to follow Endgame. Wrapping everything up nicely and even starting some great elements for the future.
So yes, there are end credit scenes in this movie. Two of them. But instead of not caring about a bit of strapped on humour, stay. These scenes are vital for the future of this series of films. Plus, there is an added bonus for those who are fans of the original Sam Raimi trilogy.
So yes, it is a good movie. But there are flaws. For one, there is the whole convenient timing and placement of things. Which I thought they were going to explain but never did. The story does feel like a bit of rehash of Homecoming and how the motives of some are shown, and that was my biggest gripe.
This film is funny, has good action, pretty well-done CGI and amazing performances from all its cast. This movie deserves to follow Endgame and closes Phase Three fluently. Spider-Man: Far From Home is a great movie and has given me hope for the future of Marvel's plan.
8.6/10
Not my favourite. I love angst in love stories, I don't mind the uglier side of relationships, but not when it feels like the characters absolutely cannot stand each other. The arguments were too petty and too annoying and too cliché to actually build any sort of meaning or commentary beyond what we were given at face value. Yeah, alright, the movie proves love isn't a bed of roses, but it does so in an uninspired way in my opinion, then trying to salvage itself by throwing a few callbacks and clever dialogue about the relationship between love, life and time that all just mostly fall flat (even if there's some genuinely good moments in the midst of it all). Jesse and Celine work as a fleeting relationship, not as a long lasting one. In the other two films you could see they got on each other's nerves but it worked cus they were only in each other's presence for a brief period of time. This film wants so hard to be realistic, but there's nothing realistic about these two staying together for this long. The creator of this trilogy should have realised this worked better as a succession of one night stands.
[5.5/10] It’s impossible to process Justice League without considering Batman v. Superman, the film’s literal predecessor, and The Avengers, its spiritual one. Justice League is so much in conversation with these films, so much reacting to them and responding to them and in the twin shadows of them, that the movie almost doesn’t make sense without them.
It was The Avengers, the 2012 superhero team-up film, and its billion dollar box office take, that sparked Hollywood’s current fascination with cinematic universes and builds to franchise-wide crossovers. It is the seismic event in superhero cinema that moved D.C. from making siloed, solo flicks for its best-known characters, to packing as many recognizable faces and logos into each movie as possible, and promising more interconnected adventures to come.
On the surface, Justice League borrows plenty from The Avengers. Both films feature an alien invasion led by a helmet-horned antagonist who promises to pave the way for a bigger bad to come. Both feature the occasional extraterrestrial cube which some want to use as a power source and others want to use as a weapon. And both feature a collection of heroes who are not on the same page, and bicker and take sides with regularity, and need a grand event to reunite them. Having Avengers writer/director Joss Whedon on board to help pinch hit for Zack Snyder (the director of Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, and this film) as needed just reaffirms the inevitable parallels between the first big superhero team up film and Justice League.
But just as Dawn of Justice felt like a reaction to Man of Steel, Justice League feels like an attempt at course correction from Batman v. Superman. Critics complained that BvS was too self-serious, so Justice League has plenty of jokes, light-hearted moments, and the sort of meta winks that have Whedon’s fingerprints all over them. Fans groused about Batman v. Superman’s runtime, so Justice League comes in at a crisp two hours.
And yet, this attempt to imitate the movie that started it all, and course correct from the predecessor that disappointed audience, just leads Justice League to make its own, brand new mistakes, which will no doubt be fodder for some third new direction in the next DCEU team-up film.
The most tangible of these issues is the awful CGI. Steppenwolf, the film’s computer-generated antagonist occupies an entirely different world than the flesh and blood characters in Justice League, and anytime his pre-rendered domain intersects with the nominally real world, there is a sharp dissonance that takes the viewer out of the picture. Everything from the villain’s uncanny valley visage to the fact that the climax of Justice League takes place an off-the-shelf Playstation 2 environment signals phoniness to the audience and makes all the action feel miscalibrated and inconsequential.
But the deeper problem is how underdeveloped most of the characters here feel. One of the advantages of the first Avengers film is that four of its six heroes had already had their own introductory films to establish who they were and what they were about, and the other two had played significant roles in those films. That meant that a handful of scenes to reestablish everyone was all you really needed.
Justice League, on the other hand, has only really introduced three of its characters in prior cinematic outings, and one of them spends most of this movie in a box (the film opens with the equivalent of a Superman flashback). That means Justice League’s hurried attempt to reintroduce its crew in the first act has more work to do, on top of introducing the major conflict, themes, and villain. Only Wonder Woman’s intro can coast on having a full film’s worth of exploration and coast on a thrilling action set piece. That leaves Aquaman to make abbreviated sarcastic comments to Bruce Wayne; Flash to have his entire situation explained in exposition by either Batman or his dad; Cyborg to banally brood in shadows and middling graphics, and for Batman himself to skulk around a cutscene from Arkham City. The result is that only Diana feels fully realized by the time they’re all ready for a team-up.
It also means that everyone comes off caricatured rather than developed. There’s not time in Justice League to really tell Cyborg’s story, so the film ups the brood factor to try to compensate. Flash goes from being the compelling, untested kid finding his way through all of this to being just a superpowered Sheldon from Big Bang Theory. And everyone, but especially Aquaman, starts spouting catchphrases and rejoinders so cheesy, I half-expected the King of the Atlanteans to blurt out “Cowabunga!” There’s interesting threads of stories for each of them, but it’s all either rushed or discarded as the film plows forward.
Despite those mistakes, Justice League finds its own unique, laudable moments, which are entirely separate from its predecessors. The peak of these is the “save one” sequence, where young Flash starts to get cold feet when things start to heat up in terms of the big fight. Batman tells him to simply save one person, and let it all unfold from there. It’s a simple idea, but one that blooms nicely as the sequence goes on, and provides the optimistic bent that had been so demanded in an organic way.
And as much as it follows the Avengers blueprint, Justice League also finds ways to distinguish itself. If there’s a single self-contained arc in Justice League, it’s the same one the Marvel equivalent had -- that these superheroes could be a powerful force for good when working together, but that they needed something important, something that was missing, to unite them. For The Avengers, that was a major death, but for the Justice League, it’s a resurrection. needed a death to reunite them. For the Justice League, it takes a resurrection.
To that end, the film manages to make good on some of the promise of Batman v. Superman that was lost in execution. In many ways, Justice League is the other half of BvS, the answer to the questions that the prior film was asking, and both films come out looking better for it.
It’s a creditable twist that when Batman seeks to revive Superman, and cautions Alfred to have the “big guns” ready, that saving grace turns out not to be a superweapon or a dose of kryptonite, but simply Lois Lane, there to remind Clark Kent who he is. It’s a clever moment, and an echo of that much-maligned “Martha” scene, which reveals how Batman now understands that the way to get to Kal-El is not through weapons of technology, but through their shared humanity.
By the same token, BvS wondered aloud and often if the world really needed Superman. and the closest thing to an overall theme Justice League has is that the world is broken without him. There’s a conviction in the film that Superman brought the world hope, and without him there’s only fear. He is a unifying, reassuring force, for his mother and the woman he loves, for the team that needs him, and the world at large. There’s new threads to pick up, and future teases galore, but the best thing to say in favor of Justice League is that it takes care to resolve much of what its predecessor set up in a satisfying enough fashion.
The only issue is that in trying to split the difference between its lead-in and its competition, Justice League turns out to be a fine but unavailing outing for what is supposed to be the climax of D.C.’s Cinematic Universe. It is not nearly as fun, enjoyable or clever as The Avengers. It is not nearly as contemplative or thoughtful as Batman v. Superman. Instead it’s stuck in a strange middle ground, taking a team-up that fans have been salivating for for decades and making it into a reasonably enjoyable, roundly generic superhero action flick, rather than the world-beating crossover the movie-going public has been waiting for. In trying to find a middle ground between those two approaches, and those two aesthetics, Justice League comes up with a film that’s lesser than either.
So, is it overly feministic? No, it isn't. I'd say Wonder Woman is more so than this film. It holds it's character strongly and does not diverge the audience's views when watching. The undertones are there sure, but it isn't in your face. Just thought I'd get that out of the way because some around me were wondering that themselves.
Carol Danvers is a great addition to the MCU. Not only has the studio thought long and hard about her placement, but also on how they can make her a defining character for our day and age. No doubt that in the future she will grow and see stronger days herself. But for now, we are left with a very fast paced story with Carol herself, not seeming quite right. There is something off about Brie Larson's performance, and I think it's because of the quick cutting of emotional stages she goes through. I know they are making an amnesia story (with a slim amount of tropes I might add!), but for some reason, she can't seem coherent enough in emotional performing to make this character fully likeable. Then again. it's an origin story. The way she is blunt with others is a plus though.
The villain is complicated here. While I'd say one of the better in the MCU. There are some drawbacks to how they interact with Carol. Not much I can say about them. But having a movie set in the past with a big threat like in the 3rd act was kind of stupid in my opinion. No stakes at all.
For the technical side of things, shots were nice. Too much cutting than I would have liked in fight scenes in hand to hand. The final fight was greatly done though. The music didn't stand out much and was unneeded in some scenes that would have benefitted from silence or a more subtle tone rather than an orchestral track. CGI was fairly good. But, Captain Marvel's powers make her look really fake when flying.
Young Nick Fury and Captain Marvel are, of course, the main highlight to take away. Like a buddy cop movie, but with more superpowers and cats. The chemistry between the two was funny and well put together. The final line said by Carol in the mid-credits scene is a nice callback earlier in the film to cement the two.
So yes duh, there is a mid-credits scene and an end-credits scene. But you could leave after the mid-credits. As the final scene is just a cutesy one. But if you want absolutely no spoilers at all and are the type to even avoid trailers for the new Avengers. It may not be the best play to watch the mid-credits.
Captain Marvel is a good introduction to the strong female lead Carol Danvers. A fun journey with a duo I'd love to see more of. As well as more of Carol's flaws in a visual medium, not vocal. It's no Iron Man, but I see a bit of that Tony Stark spark in this promising character.
Second Viewing Update
So after another look because of uncertainty. I can say now that I was frustrated with the lack of actual character build. Before I remarked the amnesia story being an excuse for the lacking of visual storytelling. But now it was getting to me. Carol Danvers deserves better. And I hope in Endgame she gets it. I have faith in the Russos to give her better development. If not, other instalments will hear our cries for giving this amazing promise, flaws. Downgrading my rating a bit as for a movie about this character, it focuses more on her abilities than her as a person.
7.2/10
6.8/10
Check here for my MCU rankings.
https://trakt.tv/users/corruptednoobie/lists/my-mcu-rankings?sort=rank,asc
This is one of the movies that is really hard to rate for me, and I am torn between two sides. On the positives:
I liked the acting of this rather unknown cast. Acting for a normal movie is hard enough, and I believe that musicals are the supreme discipline, as you do not only have to have the ability to be a good actor, but you also need to both, be able to sing and dance and it has to sound good and look good. And here I have to say: They are excellent. All dance choreographies where really challenging, and had really funny ideas that made me smile a number of times. Comparing it to other musicals I have seen in the last year I have to say, those choreographies where even better than those in the beloved La La Land. Those choreographies where also well designed and scripted - for instance take the very first dance choreography in the high school - it is used to convey all the relationships of the different characters and their (hidden) feelings for each other, which I think was really great.
And speaking about great ideas - the entire movie is a absolutely great idea - when did you ever see a Christmas-High-School-Coming-of-Age Musical with Zombies? A really innovative idea, creating something new, which is really hard, in today's movie landscape.
The movie uses a lot of absurd ideas and interesting camera angles (e.g. the burning tire or a few of the deaths) and the humor that is conveyed using these angles was also really good. The movie doesn't take itself serious, there are a number of splatter scenes that are really funny, many things look unrealistic, because they avoid CGI and everything is made of practical effects (and those are simple) but with this I think they pay homage to the stage musical where you don't have CGI and use simple practical effects throughout - and also these things make the movie look even more funny.
And last but not least, the movie has a lot of soul, everybody seems to be really invested into this movie and giving his or her very best. It is a really charming movie.
If I point out that I have found a number of positive aspects that means that unfortunately I also have found some aspects that I consider negative:
Probably the most important one for me: The jokes that they made on purpose in movie where absolutely bad, and I couldn't laugh at any of the dialogues or one liners (e.g. "Oh no" - "What?" - "Justin Bieber is a zombie" - how is that even remotely funny?). I thought most of the jokes where either embarrassing, not funny at all or even annoying. And for me that really harms the movie.
Obviously Shaun of the Dead is an inspiration to this musical and it's even referenced. The parallels however are often really obvious and the problem with that is: Whenever Anna and the Apocalypse "copies" something we already know in Shaun of the Dead the later makes it so much better than this movie does. For instance they use the typical cut technique we know from Edgar Wright (e.g. in Worlds End where they order their beers and a water), but when they do, they do not try to convey a funny moment and therefore it seems unnecessary and wasted (for instance they use it in a random scene where the guys get into a car, which has no funny moment and does not compact something that needs to be shown).
Musicals are called musicals because they have music, and for me, a good musical has a song that captures me and that stays with me even after I've seen the movie for the first time (without rehering the soundtrack, etc.). Take La La Land, for instance. I've just seen that movie once, yet when I read the three words "City of Stars", I have an instant earworm that will stick with me the entire day. The Greatest Showman's "This is me" is equally catchy. With "Anna and the Apocalypse" there is no song that stood with me, no song that stood out, that captivated me, and a few weeks later if you'd play a song from this movie to me, I believe I wouldn't recognize them).
And when it comes to the genre of Zombie movies, this movie does not bring you anything new. And even for Zombie comedies there are a lot of better options to turn to. The only thing unique to this movie is it's setting at Christmas time, but they don't really cash in on the Christmas spirit, so other than the date and the decorations, this movie does not feel like a Christmas movie at all - take classics such as Home Alone, you can see that it is possible to convey a Christmas feeling even though your movie is not really about Christmas but cool action. And here - again - Anna and the Apocalypse falls short.
Last but not least - I am not really a musical fan. It's just not my genre. So convincing me is just as much harder, and in that aspect "La La Land" really did an excellent job, while all of the other current musicals didn't - this one included. I would have loved it to become a Christmas steady, I am always open for good new and unconventional Christmas movies (I feel like there are too few Christmas movies that I actually like - you can fill them into one evening, so I would love to have some additions to that list) but I am not sure if this movie could fill that spot - unfortunately.
Still I have to also honor all the positive aspects that I have mentioned, and I am sure that everyone who enjoys musicals will find this movie a great pick - it's no La La Land, no Shaun of the Dead and no Zombieland - but for a low budget independent movie with an entire cast of new inexperienced actors this movie this is really worth your time, so I would still recommend to give it a chance, and I am sure that it will find its fandom.
