As a skeptical person, the preachy tone of the movie kind of annoys me, not enough to make me stop, but it does make me have a more biased opinion about such religious thriller/suspense. In one hand I found the scary scenes really boring and in no way scary, in the other hand, the point that if a person lives a life of mainly hedonistic pleasures won't find happiness is something I believe as well. While I'm not the norm, one doesn't need to be religious to avoid alcoholic beverages, the use of heavy drugs and other hedonistic pleasures.
That said, the part where one doesn't need the church to be religious was actually a nice message. One does not need an institutionalized religion/church to be religious and/or spiritual. Being an agnostic atheist doesn't make one already a hater of religion in itself (especially since I also take some of its teachings - and from other religions - to heart) but it does make me wary of such organized religious groups like the Catholic Church, or cults like the Church of Scientology.
Regardless of such ideological and moralistic debate, this movie didn't age well, especially if you identify yourself as an atheist, agnostic or whatever definition based on skepticism and rationality to heart. Hell, I don't think that even a religious person would like this movie that much, regardless of its position of organized religion.
There is always room for a story based on history. Of course, this uses the real life history of Emiliano Zapata for the basis of the movie. One thing the movie doesn`t say is that the Zapatas (Zapata Family) was, during a time, supportive of the oppressive dictator Porfirio Diaz. Another lost oportunity was the event were one of the groups of the large states under Zapata control ended up burning a entire village trying to steal they lands by force, something Zapata had difficulty controlling. The end of the movie also ends up being misleading, only Genera Jésus Guajardo shot Zapata many types andn delivered his body for the reward on his head
While there is a interesting story to be told here, one has to ask a very important question: WTF is wrong with Brandons "mexican face"? I found that offensive and Im not Mexican. But if an american pretended to be Brazillian with a Soccer ball while drinking caipirinha with a stupid haircut, I`d be pissed. This is, so far, the worse acting done by Brandon comparing it with his other movies I recentyl watched (The Men & A Streetcar Named Desire) primarily, I think, of that terrible make up and weird mustache. Gezus.
One thing I really liked was the acting done by Jean Peters. Compared with the mentioned movies, hers was the very first woman that didnt act like she was in a 50s movie while being in a 50s movie. That overdramatic crap doesnt work today for a reason. Anthony Quinn really did shine here too, a actor that I didn`t know before watching this.
TL;DR - The movie is good to learn a little about mexican history, but there are some obstacles to enjoy the story. And one needs to be aware that the entire story is more interesting. Real life usually beats fiction.
I really can t get over the old overdramatic style of acting. It doesn t make me feel it, the weight of the scene, the burden of the emotions portraited on the screen. Comparing with something new, take Jordan Pelee`s Get Out! scene where the protagonist is in the chair being hypnotyzed by the mother of the family. I FELT THAT IN MY BONES!
That being said, some movies and actors stand out more than others and go over that obstacle that you end up finding to enjoy a movie. I didn t really feel anything over Brandon s Character crying. I felt something watching Vivien Leigh right at the end when things happen. But that accomplishment are given to the actress, Leigh, and what the plot is about. Brandon and his character are good-to-great at being the awful partner, Kim Hunter is good as the sister and the rest of the cast is meh-to-good (sometimes the worse was Karl Malden s Mitchell, but at the end he was upt to good). Leigh obviously was a way more experienced actress compared with Brandon at the time, so, only during the climax she outshone him, but for the rest of the movie, I really liked Brandon style, it was less overdramatic but real enough, but, of course, really far from being a sublime performance.
I prefer Brandon over The Men (1951) that got a lower score than this one and I don`t want to accept it. He, too, lacks the emotional convincing when he starts crying over The Men, but during the rest of the movie he really did stand out and was a great perfomance, while, of course, being far from sublime.
The movie starts with an horrible narration that sticks through the whole movie, and the problem is not the narration in it self, it is the voice. There are plenty of good narrations like God's voice in Good Omens, that is top notch. The voice of this narrator sounds like an annoying friend trying to tell you a story but he cannot keep you focused enough since he is, simultaneously, bad at telling stories and have a type of voice that urks you. To be fair, it is not the worse narration I've ever heard on a movie/series.
The acting is decent enough to be considered average. The most stiff one was Boneta, while the best one was Fimmel, followed by Daddario. Watching the beginning of the movie I was slightly at the side of the parents. Those that have a certain level of maturity can understand what is wrong about fighting people to get bashed and the danger of such acts, but you start to realize that both "kids"
(Ben and Mary) act out like that because of how their parents treat them.
The one with the least excuse is Ben whom I cannot understand his motivations, [spoiler/] his father is overbearing, but Marys parents were way worse. While Mary had her mon basically pushing a scrapbook of her past mistakes "to laugh" + her outright CRIMINAL and overbearing father, Bens father is way better in comparison and he still has his loving mother (an enabler of his father, but still loving - it wouldve been better for the plot if his father actually hit her mon. That way it would make sense for why he was acting like a b**ch "I want to be beat up to feel something." geez, that cringe af, you are not Wolverine from Logan). [/spoiler] Marys actions are understandable even if you denounce it as bad actions, while Ben sounds like a cringe kid that never grow up from fighting at school.
***** a small tangent ******
I keep imagining a satirical movie where the kids of two families keep acting horrible. They get into a relationship and still act like shit, and things starts to escalate. But the point is that they still have nice boring parents that cannot be the excuse for them being f*ck ups and blaming their upbringing or their parents for being horrible humans. And the point of the family`s opposition to their relationship is because they are toxic af to other and themselves while in the relationship. The end could be either them both dying or... idk, they both should still die because that would send a stronger message about being egotistical f*ck ups.
********* continuing *********
The rest of the movie was just mediocre and fine. The couple`s relationship with each other is fine, and I think Daddario and Boneta had good chemistry on the screen, at least good enough for this movie. I could nitpick their reasons for not being able of getting into contact with each other, but forget it, what is even the point (I mean, we have smartphones today, who the f* writes letters and calls on the home telephone? at the end of the day that was just an excuse, a terrible one, but still an excuse for the plot to happen).
The main villain is also forgettable. Not because a stalker cannot be a good villain, but because of how terrible it was written, and perhaps how it was play it out by Chatwin, however I don`t know Chatwin enough to judge his acting. His villain felt... pathetic, but not in a good way like in the show "You".
The music is forgettable.... really, I can`t remember the soundtrack. I guess that shows that it is good enough to tell the story, while not being terrible nor good to be noticeable.
The clothes are fine and nothing exceptional, make up too, though I don`t understand enough about both this fields.
Going back at the beginning, I really like the animation, but Im biased since I also like such things in movies and series. Though I didt like the rewind effect before the credits starts showing up at the start. It was pointless. Almost gave be whiplash from showing as it was going backwards in time to just showing Ben and Mukul giving the homeless the coats.
TL;DR - Another run of the mill "Romeo and Juliet" romance where the stories' two main characters cannot be together because of their families rivalry. Think modern Romeo and Juliet (but worse) with a dash of fights, guns and violence. Even if you like the genres, you could still have a bad time, even if the movie have its good moments.
Is the Snyder's Cut better than the 2017 version? Definitely! Is it good? Yes, somewhat. Is a masterpiece? No, god no. Is it good as Marvel movies? Hell no!
The Snyder cut is definitely a huge improvement on the 2017. There is no question that is a good fair movie. The same way Transformers is a good fair movie. It is pure entertainment. But the main problems of the Snyder Saga is still here.
Some of the things I liked.
1. A good scene: Superman staring Flash down when he is in super speed is actually nice.
2. Made me appreciate the terrible but superior Watchmen movie.I prefer to sit through that slog compared with this a 1000x.
3. It made me want to pickup and read actual great Justice League stories or to re-watch the Animated Series/Unlimited.
SNYDER went through some horrible shit. But that doesn't make him a good director nor a good storyteller. 6/10, I`m out!
Moonrise Kingdom isn't per se just a movie, it is an aesthetic experience, artistic, beautifully shot, wonderfully directed and skillfully edited (as far as my limited knowledge go).
We can start exploring the visuals of the movie, Wes Anderson, as already stated by better reviewers (aka CineFix, and others) always shot his movies focusing on the center or splitting the scene in the two corners (right and left), and that characteristic of his directing makes for some wonderful visuals and scenes, as well as great shots, and we cannot forget in some surreal (breaking the four wall) transitional shots that are well edited if not one shooted. I don't understand enough about color theory and even if it is a fact, however, the colors of this movie give a sense of nature, they are upbeat but real. And if that isn't what constitutes a great movie, in the technical sense, I don't know what does.
The sound, while forgetful, is good, made me think of looking for it on Spotify.And we cannot forget about the wonderful cast that Wes Anderson always manages to gathers towards his films. Every single actor manages to express what their characters should express. The main characters (Sam and Suzy) express suffering in an anguishing way. And I have to say, it amazes me their scene in the beach, the moonrise kingdom, where they first kissed . I cannot help but think about how embarrassing they must have felt and they still did a good job. Let's not forget about they are two children trying to make a scene in front of adults and that the movie was in many theaters around the world. That in itself is already difficult for grow people, lets remember the fact that Henry Cavill got a boner in the set of The Tudors, and how most actors and actresses think is the most dreaded part of the job, imagine being a teen and going through that? It is amazing they managed to make it funny (at least to me) in a non-awkward way.
TL;DR: This is an amazing movie for Wes Anderson fans and alike, and also a good intro movie for those who never watched a Wes Movie. 10/10, would watch it again.
There is one feeling after watching this movie and it sums up with the following statement: This would be my favorite hero movie of all times if they do not resurrect everyone. Saying this, it is expected of them to come up with a solution to do exactly that, unless they really surprise us in the second installment of Infinity War. Still, if one analysis Infinity War just in itself and do not connect to past movies or the ones that will follow, Infinity War would deserve to be in everybody's top 10 superhero movies of all time.
The best superhero stories don't necessarily need the villain to win, but it is "realistic" (aka better and it feels more satisfying) when the villain's strategy is better and/or they are stronger than the heroes and they get to win because of that. It is even more satisfying when the reasoning of the villain kind of makes sense while their logic is flawed somewhere (showing the weakness of the villain), especially if the superhero and the villain agree on something but their approach is quite different to solve the problem.
There is room to argue that Thanos is one of the great villains since he has a purpose beyond just being a villain for the sake of villainy.
The fact that this movie destroyed the carrier of Tod Browning (Dracula) amazes me. The idea of the movie is really innovative for the 20s, even if the original picture is considered to be even more brutal and totally different from this shorter final version and for that, I will not consider what is told about the original script.
The plot has been said to be predictive, and it is, it is also said to be unrealistic, which is not. There is no fantasy in a person taking advantage of another in a situation of one-sided love. Hans loves Cleopatra, a man with Dwarfism loves the epitome of beauty which is represented by Cleopatra, she, knowing that can manipulate him easily, takes advantage of that, I can't see how is that fantastical.
Though the movie depicts the Olga's and Henry Victor's character as the villains, I didn't feel that only the beauty and "normal" people are actually villains since there is Venus, a character that I found it rather likable, especially with its opening scene showing her dumping Hercules, and Phroso character is also likable. A clown that is kind to everyone in the circus. Even the scene that least like with Phroso - him forgetting his date with Venus or him getting too flirty with the twins for the sake of entertainment - is not horrible. I still find Venus the most likable character.
And from here we have the one being fooled, Hans. From the start of the movie, I didn't even have a chance to see him as a lovable character. While he states, in the beginning, his love for Frieda, he ends up marrying Cleoprata. This makes him unlikable to a certain degree, while at the same time understandable for why he got so psychotic in the ending.
There is also the secondary characters, Roscoe seems a jackass and because of that I didn't get what one of the Twins saw in him, his best scene being when the other Twin's fiance appears and he is actually polite for once - which it doesn't make him any more of a douche. I didn't find the scenes of the "freaks" entertaining, but I did like the scene of Schlitze and Phroso. And for the least the worse, those fat asses that kept antagonizing everyone in the circus and that scene where Hercules punches Josephine Joseph without any kind of consequence.
The ending was actually bad, not the scene where Hercules gets its due or Cleopatra - whatever the hell happens to her, but the added scene where Frieda forgives Hans for his foolishness. And I also found it to be extremely weird the scene where they show what happens to Cleopatra, she turned into a chicken? WTF happened? Weird ass ending for me.
I have watched the trilogy (so far there is only a trilogy) and boy how glad I'm to see this saga only improve. I found the first one shitty, but enough of that, this is a comment on this movie specifically, not the trilogy, even so, I will compare this primarily with the other two, without getting too detailed about it.
The plot continues not so short after the first movie. There is a narration in the beginning but it's not so annoying as others narrations can be. The first scene of the apes hunting was amazingly shot, I actually gasped a little, first, there is Ceasar's yell, then a moment of the prey running in despair and then the sound starts. That sound I found it so amazing and fit the scene nicely, but I don't think any director could pull something like that easily (though I'm "dummy" level when it comes to cinematography techniques).
The plot then follows slowed-paced. It is actually kind of boring at times, but this is rewarded by the emotional shit, the conflict that comes in Ceasar's understanding that Apes are just as bad as Humans.
That ending though was better than anything they put in the first movie, but not the third (even better than this one).
Even after the watching the third movie and loving more than the first two, I'm still amazed by Serkis's acting. Even with CGI, he manages to pass a great deal of emotion, that, of course, couldn't be accomplished with a shitty CGI team, so they did a really amazing job in that part.
While I was praising the sound from the opening scene I can say that its soundtrack is not that memorable and other movies, that is not to say that is bad, it's just not memorable.
Compared to the other two movies, the humans in this one is lacking something, I would say charisma, but that wouldn't be accurate. The only acting that really stands out, besides Serkis, is that of Gary Oldman. But even Gary didn't have the time for truly shine.
Finally, I must say that the first movie is good but worse than this one and this one is worse than the third one. At least in my humble opinion.
This movie really has bad ratings. Though understandable by being another sad story about how life is hard for teens from middle class to high-middle class (i don't know if this is a thing), this makes the plot feels shallow, and worse yet, they could avoided (and probably made a better movie) by not making the other 2 friends (Rebecca and Amelia) only comic relief. They could have developed Rebecca's financial problems, instead they made her have hots for her teacher. And they could probably explore more of Amelia's relationship with her parents. Instead of making a movie about two sad friends feeling grief over a boy/brother, they could have made a movie about actual people coming to terms about becoming adults.
But I still think is a too low rating for this movie. Even though I understand why the five rating, there are some great lines here, there is also a somewhat not that shallow understanding of grief, like how different people deal with death differently, though in not great detail.
To sum it up I'd say that if you don't have the time or patience for a mid grade movie, don't waste your time, go watch something else. If you want movies about becoming adults I doubt this is the best or one of the greats, the same for movies about grieving.
