Ladies & gentlemen, they & them,
Early 2000’s superhero movies are back, baby!
Madame Web is a top-tier dumpster fire.
It has some of the worst dialogue I have heard in a while. How are these writers, who brought us such gems as Dracula Untold, The Last Witch Hunter, Gods of Egypt, and the trillion-dollar hit Morbius, still working?
“Every day that goes by, my appointment with death gets closer.” is an actual line from the movie. There is plenty more to go around.
The editing and visual effects are atrocious.
The acting from everyone is awful. The line delivery is shockingly low energy, and I did not believe a word any of the actors were saying.
I have seen these actors do great work in the past, so this is 100% the director's fault here. It's crazy how a director can get piss-poor performances from good actors.
The characters had no chemistry with each other. The scenes together felt so awkward and unnatural.
There are so many character choices that don't make sense.
The villain fucking sucks. There is no real character to him. He's just a boring evil guy who wants to kill three “teenagers” because he dreamed of them killing him in the future. He is not threatening at all.
I noticed the actor who played the villain was dubbed over with ADR for most of his scenes. You can tell.
None of the humour landed. Painfully unfunny.
The 2003 pop culture references were a pathetic excuse for creating a time capsule setting.
Adam Scott and Emma Roberts have nothing to do here. You wonder why they are even there.
For a superhero movie, there are barely any exciting action scenes. Whenever there is some action, it's nothing special. I would not mind the lack of action if the story, characters, and acting were superb, but it has none of that.
The fact that the final battle scene takes place underneath a Cola/Pepsi sign is another example of the terrible product placement from Sony.
The final shot is the most embarrassing thing I have ever seen.
My jaw is on the floor of how a movie like this can be shit out by a big studio. Sony REALLY needs to cut it out with these unnecessary Spider-Man spin-off films.
Madame Web is the worst superhero movie ever made. Yes, I mean it. At least the other bad superhero movies had some redeeming qualities to it. But this movie has nothing. Everything about this movie is wrong. Fant4stic is better than this. It makes Morbius look competently made.
The current state of superhero movies is in trouble, and Madame Web is not helping.
Let's imagine that you're the producer of a movie set up in Salamanca, but Spain is too far away, and you already spent most of your budget on the actors payroll. What do you do? Easy! Just film in Mexico, it's a nice country, it's closer to Hollywood, and they even speak the same language! To disguise it a little bit, distribute a few Spanish flags amongst the extras, and surely nobody will notice it's not Spain! :)
(For non Spanish speakers: yes, Mexican and Spanish people share the same language... in the same way that somebody from Texas, London, Australia or Hong Kong would share English. Nobody in their right mind would film in Hong Kong, with two hundred local extras, and have them pass for New Yorkers, right? Well that's exactly what they did in this movie).
If they planned to film in Mexico, why didn't they set up the movie in Mexico instead of pretending it's Spain? It makes no difference to the story at all!!
Anyway, moving on. Let's now imagine you're the storywriter. You're writing a thriller, a good one, you know, with lots of plot twists and stuff. You're almost done with the script after a lot of hard work (about 7 minutes of writing, give or take). But you just can't wrap it up to make it into a movie... there are too many characters doing too many things at the same time. You could just remove a superfluous character, but they already casted Forest Whitaker and it would be uncool to fire him now. And you don't want to mess it up with multiple scenes on screen either, they already did that with Hulk and it was a huge fail. So what else could you do...? Wait, I have an idea! We can make a 5 minutes movie, but film it from 238 different points of view, and play them one after another, as if we were rewinding!!! Cool, huh? (No, not really...)
On the plus side, that way we can also afford to have Sigourney Weaver and Eduardo Noriega for the whole movie, even if they only have to record like 10 minutes each. Gee, with the money we are saving this way, we actually could have filmed in Spain, after all...
There is nothing salvageable from this movie. The location ambient couldn't be more awful, even if they tried. Compared to this, I could almost forgive what they did on Mission Impossible 2. But sadly, there are even worse problems with Vantage Point. The first 40 minutes are the same scene, over and over again, only switching the character each time: 5 minutes, rewind, and start again. Yes, it gets annoying, of course it does. At least, the second half gets a little... well, I wanted to say that it gets better, but it's actually the other way around. Slightly less rewinds, but the story gets much dumber. So... yeah.
By the way, I have another gem for you. Let's imagine that now you are a 5 years old, sweet little girl, who wants to cross a highway with loooots of traffic. There is a pedestrian bridge over it, but you're 5... so, you try to cross the road instead, like the proverbial chicken. First attempt: woah, close one, you almost got run over! Never mind, you try again, because you really want to cross. Second attempt: yup, almost run over. But you try again anyway! Third attempt, and there is an ambulance going straight towards you at 800 km/h (or mph, whatever), with the flashing lights, the sirens, the whole thing. Quick, what do you do!? Move out of the way? Nah, better to stay still, crying for mom in slow motion. Luckily Forest Whitaker was around, and had time to notice what was happening, climb down the bridge, run to the girl, and save her, before anybody else even noticed anything. Superman Whitaker!! And here I was, calling his character superfluous... :)
Barbie 2023, oh boy, where do I even begin? This movie is like a glittery train wreck, a hot mess wrapped in a pink bow. From the moment the opening credits rolled, I knew I was in for a wild ride, and not in a good way. It's as if the filmmakers took every cliché in the book and crammed it into one painfully predictable storyline.
The plot, if you can even call it that, is about as shallow as Barbie's plastic smile. It's a recycled tale of Barbie saving the day, yet again, with her perfectly coiffed hair and impossibly tiny waist. Yawn. I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the lack of originality and depth in the story. It's like they didn't even bother trying to come up with something remotely interesting.
And let's talk about the dialogue, shall we? It's so cheesy and cringe-worthy that I couldn't help but groan out loud. The lines are as plastic as Barbie herself, lacking any real substance or wit. It's like the writers took a bunch of tired clichés and threw them into a blender, hoping for some sort of magical concoction. Spoiler alert: it didn't work.
But perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Barbie 2023 is the missed opportunity for growth and empowerment. Barbie has been an iconic figure for decades, yet this movie does nothing to challenge or expand upon her character. Instead, it perpetuates outdated stereotypes and reinforces unrealistic beauty standards. It's a disheartening reminder of how far we still have to go in terms of representation and inclusivity in the film industry.
In conclusion, Barbie 2023 is a glittery disaster that falls flat on its perfectly manicured face. It's a prime example of lazy filmmaking and missed potential. Save yourself the agony and skip this one. Trust me, you won't be missing out on anything groundbreaking or remotely entertaining. Barbie deserves better, and so do we.
Starts off really strong and fun.
The sets look incredible and its immersive. They had a really great message about body positivity and unrealistic expectations on women & I was all the way behind it.... Then rapidly spirals into a pure man hate / Women supremacy. Its obvious the writers have a huge chip on their shoulders.. It's messaging is so heavy handed it completely took me out of the movie & brings it from enjoyable to a drab 2 hour rant by an angry twitter blue user who think's women's rights is still in the 1800's.
They have this unreal take that you're set for life if you're a man and just get instant success. They think everything's better if you're a man (Guess what, it doesn't work that way. I'm told every day how I'm a bad person because I'm a man, and for only that.... Just like this movie does)...
Being preached at about why being a man is so bad for 2 hours does not make for a fun viewing experience.
It shows the glaring double standards of the current mainstream talking points.
This movie blindly preaches that "the world would be better if the shoe was on the other foot" and it comes across as tone deaf.
Its BAD all one gender "rules the world" but if its women, its A-OK!... which defeats the purpose of feminism.
Women getting equality, not supremacy.
call this a hot take but I think men and women should be equal..... but this movie thinks men don't even deserve a seat on Barbie world's court - that's insane.
Why is Patriarchy bad but Matriarchy good....????
Its either all bad or none of it is, and this man hating director needs to make up her mind.
This movie has a complete lack of any kind of self-awareness or introspection.
Through direct exposition, I think directly to camera, we receive a monologue about society's unrealistic expectations for women's appearances. Meanwhile, it continues the Hollywood tradition of having an absolutely jacked and ripped and never-not-flexing Ryan Gosling walking around shirtless almost all the time.
We're treated to another long exposition in which one of the protagonists lists society's unfair expectations of how women should behave (be nice, but not too nice). I found this crazy. Most of these grievances are about things we all have to grapple with as human beings. Others... Who is society? Where are these expectations made? How do we change them? How do they compare to expectations placed on men to get jobs, go to work, learn plumbing, listen and provide feedback to women, but never explain anything? We never even consider. This movie literally lists "anxiety" as a women's issue. It's lack of ability to understand or interpret its own message is telling.
There's a segment in which men trick women to quit their jobs and take on the roles of supporting men (what!?) and women have to break each other out. At the same time, the men want nothing and do nothing except to drink beer and play guitar and ruin society and have wars because stereotyping is great as long as it's men.
There is some commentary (again, through direct exposition) about Ken's role in Barbieland, how he doesn't have a job or a purpose except to be a guy. We discover pretty quickly that we're supposed to interpret that as, "See? This is what it's like to be a woman [in the 1820s]." And what's the solution? No. No. Ken should continue to have no agency or purpose in Barbieland and that's a hilarious joke.
Every actor, though, is fully committed and doing great work.
This movie is bad. It never heard of, "show, don't tell", and instead has writers repeatedly monologuing directly to the audience. It's a ham-fisted delivery of a message that the movie doesn't itself understand, let alone interpret. The most memorable part, based on comments from women who walked out of the theater, was also the most joyous, a song and dance number starring only (ironically) men. Everyone seemed to like that part and wanted to talk about it, which is an indication of how poorly this movie communicates and entertains.
The meanest thing I could say about this movie is ‘Has extreme Don’t Worry Darling energy’.
I have never seen a movie more desperate to justify itself. It’s trapped in this endless neurosis over what it is- a blockbuster Barbie movie in 2023 by an acclaimed art house director that is fun but also deep but also earnest but also self aware but also but also but also. Every point it raises it brings up a counterpoint to before the audience can, every frame is trying to prove it’s not just product but art. It’s never just Barbie. It’s never confident or even comfortable in its skin. You cannot for a second be immersed in Barbie because it’s not a story so much as a visual dissertation without a central thesis, it’s a student film riffing on the big dogs hoping it’s underdog audacity will carry it but given a budget in the millions. It so desperately wants you to like it, to know it’s in on the joke too.
Everythng is an ouroboros here: an endless loop of argument and counterarguement feeding itself. Isn’t it shitty how the Mattel boardroom is full of men? Ah, but isn’t it cool how Mattel’s acknowledged it with this niche? And it’ll mythologize Barbie’s creator but uh don’t worry she did tax evasion we know that, now let her impart into Barbie the experience of all women. Barbie helps women, Barbie hurts women, Barbie is told to be everything so isn’t she just like women, but it is better to be a creator than the idea, and in the end, hasn’t Barbie helped all these women? Oh uh why is this blonde white Barbie the centerpiece of it all and helping not only her diverse Barbie friends but a Hispanic woman and her daughter? Don’t worry we’ll have the daughter call her a white savior! But don’t worry we’ll have the mom say she’s not! It’s fascinating to watch, honestly. It’s a film that wants to prove to you so so bad that it works but it doesn’t and it knows it doesn’t and it knows you knows. It’s Gerta Gerwig wrestling with taking this job for an hour and a half.
The cast is more than game and able. Margot Robbie is doing her damndest to find the heart and soul in this role, and there’s one scene with an old lady near the end of the first act/beginning of the second that actually works, for just a moment, more than any of the big third act soliloquies or montages with emotional ballads. And as someone who’s seen Blade Runner 2049 and Drive, this is the best Ryan Gosling performance I’ve seen. The man commits and delivers a surprisingly compelling and entertaining antagonist. The movie can’t quite reconcile what he’s done with his ending, or tie it into the themes- is Ken letting go of Barbie and the need to define himself for or against her symbolizing the need for men to do the same, and if so, why play it so lightly and sympathetically?- but that’s not his fault. And the supporting cast are entertaining, but you just can’t have big laughs with a movie that feels like it’s constantly checking in the corner of its eye after every joke to see if you’re laughing, grin stuck in place. It’s not as funny or as smart as it wants to be, and the sad thing is, it feels like it knows that too.
There is some great set design, cinematography, dazzling choreography, popping colors, and some fun high points. But I can’t imagine many kids liking it. And we’ve seen how conservatives have taken this movie. And anyone’s who’s progressed beyond the politics of. Well. A feminist blockbuster Barbie movie will find it cloying or condescending or just incredibly basic. It’s aimed at a very specific crowd who will buy what it’s saying, the liberals who see corporate feminism as progress, who agree that it’s just about a little change sometimes, who are ready for something just a little more complex than a SNL sketch. I don’t regret seeing it, because I was deeply engaged the whole time seeing it struggle at war with itself, in pain for its whole existence. It’s not a boring movie by any means. It wants to say everything before the audience can say it first. It’s the endpoint of The Lego Movie and Enchanted- the corporations interrogating and justifying themselves, and the cracks in this formula are too large to ignore. It wants to be so much, and the attempt is as darkly mesmerizing as a fly thinking it can somehow and someway metamorphize into a butterfly and suffocating and struggling in its makeshift cocoon, but this is one Barbie that fundamentally just cannot break out of its box.
Look you don’t have a lot to work with here, so this is probably as good as it could be. I like it more than the live action adaptations from the 2010s, that’s for sure. The plot and characters are nothing special, it’s really the stylistic animation and score that carry the entire movie. I also quite liked the voice acting, the turtles all feel distinct and I’m not surprised that Ice Cube’s expressive voice (given his background) works really well for animation. The problems start to reveal themselves as soon as you start to pay attention to the material that the actors are working with. The comedy mostly sucks and tries way too hard, as expected for mainstream American movies now. Some of the banter and dialogue felt like it got a pass by Marvel’s staff, it’s that embarrassing. It also has some of the weirdest, out of place pop culture references I’ve seen in a long time (you’ll know when you see them), as well as 90s needle drops that serve no purpose besides serving up empty nostalgia (seriously, even Transformers: Rise of the Beasts had the decency to at least set their film during the 90s). Its moments of action can be fun, but unfortunately it zips through a lot of them by montage during the first half, which was the wrong choice. The second half is definitely more entertaining in that regard. Overall, I don’t recommend this if you’re past the age of its target audience, but the beautiful visuals definitely made it more palatable compared to other movies like it.
5/10
If you’d ask me what the highlights of the previous 2 Ant-Man movies are, I’d probably answer: I don’t remember much about them, but I liked those quirky scenes narrated by Michael Peña and the creative use of shrinking powers during the set pieces. For as forgettable as both movies are, at least I still remember the set piece with the train in the first movie, or the kitchen fight from the second movie. With this movie, I'm already having trouble remembering any specifics, because all of those typical Edgar Wright touches have been erased in favor of being a big CGI extravaganza. So, allow me to do a general breakdown of the three acts instead.
1st act: We get a set-up that's similar to Spiderman: No Way Home, which means it’s in a hurry to get to the main dish, making every main character look like an irresponsible dumbass in the process. Once we get to the quantum realm, we're met with a lot of cringe comedy. The design of the world is fine, it feels like a mashup of prequel era Star Wars, Avatar, The Fifth Element and Spy Kids, not like an original creation. A stronger, visionary director probably would've made a big difference here, or at least one who knows how to use the volume stages, because that might’ve avoided the Spy Kids comparisons.
2nd act: Jonathan Majors arrives to do some actual acting, and he somehow pulls it off despite the hammy, pseudo-intellectual lines given to him by the script. Michelle Pfeiffer also gets some time to shine, when she's on the screen with Majors it feels like the movie actually comes to life for a brief second. Still, the scenes with Kang feel tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie, and I’m not sold on the idea of him being the Avengers level threat we’ve been waiting for. When it comes to the other actors, most of them are given nothing interesting to do, the supposed co-lead of this movie (according to the title) included. I don't like picking on younger actors, but it needs to be said that Emma Fuhrmann expressed more emotion during her 10 second appearance as Cassie Lang in Avengers: Endgame than Kathryn Newton did here. In terms of story, this portion of the movie is all about set-up and clunky exposition as delivered through monologues. One of the characters even gets introduced with his own 'previously on Ant-Man' recap, which I find insulting and shows what little faith this studio has in its audience. Besides, it probably would’ve been better to cut this character, because his inclusion is easily one of Marvel's worst creative decisions (the design and visual effects are laughable). Generally I'd say this act is pretty boring, and occasionally embarrassing.
3rd act: The movie decides it wants to be Aquaman instead, so we're getting an extended battle sequence of stuff fighting other stuff, with plenty of flashes, lasers and more stuff. It's big, it's loud, and I check out. Every cheesy crowdpleaser deserves its fair share of deus ex machina moments, but this movie spams the action movie trope of 'our main character is in peril only to get saved at the very last moment' to death at this point. Furthermore, the cringe comedy makes a big return, with Corey Stoll delivering a line so bad that it will become a meme (you'll know once you see the movie). More punchy stuff, more pew pew, more 'comedy', and thankfully the movie finally decides it has wasted enough of my time. We get a final montage that includes the first good joke of the movie, and the credits roll. Nothing is achieved, absolutely nothing. This is a cynically conceived advertisement that does not deserve your time.
3/10
The overall concept here makes sense. Weird Al is known for parody. So naturally, his biopic film should be a parody of the entire biopic genre, rather than some ho-hum, by the numbers biopic. Unfortunately, as a parody target, the biopic genre didn't work quite as well for me as the top billboard hits that Weird Al made his career parodying. The main difference being, the top billboard hits were exactly that, they were hits. They were catchy songs that everyone already knew and loved. By comparison, I never had much appreciation for the biopic genre, which often produces bland movies that leave me wishing I had just read the Wikipedia article. As such, even a tongue in cheek deconstruction wasn't able to overcome my lack of enthusiasm for the structure.
All of that said, there were plenty of solid bits and even some moments of genius that were enough to keep me watching. The highlight for me was the reversal they pulled with Michael Jackson's "Beat It". Clever and hilarious. The frequent cameos also offered some chuckles here and there. However, those cameos, along with the segmented structure of the film, gave off an extended YouTube/SNL skit type feel. Unfortunately, that type of humor is more palatable in short form, so the 110 minutes we got here definitely overstayed its welcome for me.
If you plan to watch this because everyone keeps saying how this film is "different" from MCU films, stop right here.
That's a false advertisement. It's not a "black and white monster film from the '40s". Werewolf by Night is an MCU film through and through. There's nothing "different". Let me list:
And those are just from the top off my head. Sure you can find more if you're observant.
Well, sure Werewolf by Night is dressed in black and white but that's about it. It's a gimmick. It's not even trying to capture the essence of classic black and white films The Artist (2011) did it or build the atmosphere like Sin City (2005) did it. People saying this film is "different" from MCU needs to get their eyes checked and watch more films.
If you just wanted to watch an MCU, sure you get what you asked. But if you expected more, then whatever you heard about this film is a big fat hoax.
We've kinda come full circle with these superhero films when you think about it.
After the camp of the 90s, directors like Nolan and Singer reset the tone of superhero movies in the 2000's to something that was more grounded and serious, which in turn laid a lot of the groundwork for the MCU.
Here we have Taika Waititi providing a throwback to the Joel Schumacher days.
If that's your thing you'll probably dig it, but it's definitely not my brand of camp.
I’m not exactly a Thor: Ragnarok fan (nor the other two Thor films). I don’t have a problem with its silly tone, because I’m not a manchild who needs to see his childhood validated, but a lot of its comedy didn’t click with me (even after a rewatch). Everything that didn’t work for me in that film is amped up to an eleven here.
There are some serious points in it where the acting choices, slapstick/childish/hokey comedy, overly bright colors, gay undertones, overdesigned costumes (no nipples yet, but give Taika another film and we'll see what happens) and godawful music choices started to give me genuine flashbacks to stuff like Batman Forever, not quite the thing you want to remind me of.
It's not a complete disaster; the performances by Natalie Portman, Tessa Thompson and especially Christian Bale are generally quite good. I'm also glad Marvel seems to have definitively found the saturation button back after Guardians 2, even if the framing/lighting with the visuals remains uninspired and maintains a general level of artifice that makes it look like shit. I believe they used the volume stages for most of the production, and like Obi Wan or The Book of Boba Fett, it’s very noticeable for most of the runtime.
The story's not all that interesting and makes no sense when you put any thought into it, but that's fine given that there is some progression with most of the main characters, even if Thor’s character arc throughout the MCU is all over the place at this point. As with most Marvel films lately, there is a lot of unnecessary exposition (e.g. the Korg narrated flashbacks are really clunky), but where it really drops the ball for me is with the balancing of tone and plot elements. I already thought that the darker stuff in Thor: Ragnarok didn't blend that well with the goofy scenes on the trash planet, but there's even more tonal whiplash here. Christian Bale is giving this excellent, terrifying performance, but he's not in the same movie as Chris Hemsworth, who's playing even more of a Thor parody than he was in Avengers: Endgame. One moment we're invested in this heavy, emotional story with Natalie Portman, and then we cut back to a goofy love triangle between Thor, his hammer and his axe. It's an unbalanced mess without a sense of stakes.
I also don't know what it is with Taika's comedy in these films, because I think What we do in the shadows, Jojo Rabbit and Hunt for the wilderpeople are all very comedic and smart, but for some reason he really likes his Thor movies excessive and dumb. Screaming goats aren't funny to me, they're a dated meme at best. Maybe it's because Taika can't go edgy and niche with the jokes here, but fuck I really hate his sensibilities for this character.
In short, another major misfire from Marvel if you ask me. I pretty much disliked everything except for a few of the performances. Please go back to making indies Taika, and for the love of god: let James Gunn pick the soundtrack for your next film. Even a film this dumb doesn’t need a Guns ‘N Roses needle drop, let alone four of them.
3/10
Between this and Cherry, it’s becoming more and more clear that the MCU’s best director is called Kevin Feige.
Netflix clearly spent a lot of money on this, you can feel the price of your subscription going up with every new set piece that’s introduced, but the end results are still unforgivingly bland and generic nonetheless.
It’s their attempt to compete with Bond, Bourne or Mission Impossible, but if anything this feels like a poser imitation of those superior blockbuster franchises. The plot is in fact literally ripping off both Skyfall and The Bourne Identity at the same time, but forgets about any of their depth in regards to story and character.
The Russos are clearly trying to recapture that same tone and spark from their Captain America: The Winter Soldier days, but they end up making something that’s more akin to the quality of Red Notice.
In terms of directing they kinda got outdone by their own second unit director with his Netflix action flick, as I’d argue that Extraction is a marginally better film than this.
The action’s poorly done and cheaply put together, lots of annoying editing choices (heavy overuse of drone shots, quick cuts and can the Russos pick a normal font for once?), corny dialogue, distractingly bad CGI, boring visuals and music (why is everything so low contrast, foggy and muddy?); not a lot to recommend about this one.
The acting’s fine, Evans is having a blast, but I have absolutely no idea why an extremely picky actor like Ryan Gosling chose this script in the first place. It seems like a paycheck movie for someone of his caliber. Just watch The Nice Guys instead of this if you want to see Goose in an action comedy, we don’t need these 200 million dollar direct to streaming action films.
4/10
