Denis Villeneuve is the man!
There’s only one word that came into my mind after watching it: finally.
Finally, a blockbuster that isn’t afraid to be primarily driven by drama and tension, and doesn’t undercut its own tone by throwing in a joke every 30 seconds.
Finally, a blockbuster that puts actual effort in its cinematography, and doesn’t have a bland or calculated colour palette.
Finally, a blockbuster with a story that has actual substance and themes, and doesn’t rely on intertextual references or nostalgia to create a fake sheen of depth.
Finally, a blockbuster that doesn’t pander to China by having big, loud and overblown action sequences, but relies on practical and grounded spectacle instead (it has big sand worms, you really don’t need to throw anything at the screen besides that).
Finally, a blockbuster that actually feels big, because it isn’t primarily shot in close ups, or on a sound stage.
And of course: finally, a blockbuster that isn’t a fucking prequel, sequel, or connected to an already established IP somehow.
(Yeah, I know Tenet did those things as well, but I couldn’t get into that because the characters were so flat and uninteresting).
This just checks all the boxes. An engaging story with subtext, very well set up characters, great acting (like James Gunn, Villeneuve's great at accentuating the strengths of limited actors like Dave Bautista and Jason Momoa), spectecular visuals and art design (desaturated but not in an ugly washed out way), pacing (slow but it never drags), directing, one of Hans Zimmer’s best scores: it’s all here.
I only have one real criticism: there’s too much exposition, especially in the first half.
It can occasionally hold your hand by referencing things that have already been established previously, and some scenes of characters explaining stuff to each other could’ve been conveyed more visually.
Other than that, it’s easily one of the best films of the year.
I’ve seen some people critiquing it for being incomplete, which is true, but this isn’t just a set up for a future film.
It feels like a whole meal, there are pay offs in this, and the characters progress (even if, yes, their arcs are still incomplete).
8.5/10
Barbenheimer: Part 1 of 2
This is the kind of film I really don’t want to criticize, because we don’t get nearly enough other stuff like it. However, mr. Nolan has been in need of an intervention for a while now, and unfortunately all of the issues that have been plaguing his films since The Dark Knight Rises show up to some degree here. Visually it might just be his best film, and there’s some tremendous acting in here, particularly by Murphy and RDJ. However, it makes the common biopic mistake of treating its subject matter like a Wikipedia entry, thereby not focussing enough on character and perspective. As a whole, the film feels more like a long extended montage, I don’t think there are many scenes that go on for longer than 60 seconds. There’s a strong ‘and then this happened, and then this happened’ feel to it, which definitely keeps up the pace, but it refuses to stop and let an emotion or idea simmer for a while. There are moments where you get a look into Oppenheimer’s mind, but because the film wants to cover too much ground, it’s (like everything else) reduced to quick snippets. It’s the kind of approach that’d work for a 6 hour long miniseries where you can spend more time with the characters, not for a 3 hour film. I can already tell that I won’t retain much from this, in fact a lot of it is starting to blur together in my mind. There are also issues with some of the dialogue and exposition, such as moments where characters who are experts in their field talk in a way that feels dumbed down for the audience, or just straight up inauthentic. Einstein is given a couple of cheesy lines, college professors and students interact in a way that would never happen, Oppenheimer gives a lecture in what’s (according to the movie) supposed to be Dutch when it’s really German; you have to be way more careful with that when you’re making a serious drama. Finally, there are once again major issues with the sound mixing. I actually really loved the score, but occasionally it’s blaring at such a volume where it drowns out important dialogue in the mix. I’m lucky enough to have subtitles, but Nolan desperately needs to get his ears checked, or maybe he should’ve asked some advice from Benny Safdie since he’s pretty great with experimental sound mixing. My overall feelings are almost identical to the ones I had regarding Tenet; Nolan needs to rethink his approach to writing, editing and mixing. This film as a whole doesn’t work, but there are still more than a few admirable qualities to it.
Edit: I rewatched this at home to see whether my feeling would change. I still stand by what I wrote in July, though the sound mix seems to have been improved for the home media release. It sounds more balanced and I didn’t miss one line of dialogue this time around. I’m slightly raising my score because of that, but besides that I still think it’s unfocused, overedited, awkwardly staged and scripted etc.
5.5/10
Nothing comforts anxiety like a little nostalgia.
If anything, Hollywood has boiled that concept down to a science over the past few years, as this film is basically a summary of everything that’s wrong with the industry in a neat, 148 minute package.
It thinks it’s meta and self-aware by pointing out how cynical and cheap franchise filmmaking is.
That might sound similar set-up as 22 Jump Street, but this film proceeds to be cheap and cynical itself without saying anything substantial beyond its own set up, so it embraces what it’s trying to criticize.
Everything in this movie is structured as an excuse to show stuff you’ve seen before, there are little to no original concepts or ideas that push the franchise in an interesting direction.
It’s mostly a rehash of the first film (mixed with some stuff from Reloaded and Revolutions in the second half), except the action isn’t nearly as good, it’s more predictable and convenient, the performances are nowhere near as memorable (that’s what you get from replacing your 2 best actors), it looks uglier and more synthetic, the pacing isn’t as tight, and it’s a lot more dull because of how much it overexplains itself.
It also ditches the cyberpunk aesthetic, and replaces it with something a lot more bland and boring, stripping the franchise from a lot of its personality.
It’s honestly quite an accomplishment when you think about it: the original is one of the best, most successful, big budget films ever made that still maintained a strong artistic and alternative impulse.
This, on the other hand, couldn’t be any more lowest common denominator if it tried to.
It’s a parody of itself and modern blockbuster filmmaking.
I suppose that was Lana Wachowski’s goal to some extent, but it isn’t very compelling to watch.
3/10
The cynical side of me wants to call this Everything, everywhere all at once for consoomers.
The optimistic side of me sees Kevin Feige finally pushing the boundaries of his own franchise.
I guess it’s a little bit of both in the end.
Undoubtedly, the best thing the movie has going for it is the Sam Raiminess of it all. His fingerprints are all over it; you’re getting the weird camera angles, camp, his sense of horror, etc. It definitely has more style than some other Marvel movies, though there's also still some of the usual blandness. I'll give it to Marvel for putting in a scene where a talking corpse gives a heartfelt, sentimental speech. There's more of a psychedelic feel to it than the first film, but every time it tends to get really interesting it feels like Raimi's being reigned it to adhere to Marvel's demands. Elizabeth Olsen and Benedict Cumberbatch are giving some of their best performances as these characters to date, and the music’s really well done. But ultimately the film’s Achilles heel is its own script, which is complete junk. The story is thin, messy, nonsensical, and at times flat out embarrassing. The set-up in the first act is very rushed, while the second and third act feel like they’re written by a Reddit fanpage (you just know for a fact that Marvel only went in this direction because of the 2 Batmen that have been announced for The Flash). It’s Marvel at its most ‘producty’, and it’s going to trick a lot of people into thinking the film is better than it is. Regardless, I hope Patrick Stewart got a big paycheck for ruining his own perfect send-off in Logan at the very least. A lot of the story beats don’t make sense either, with most of the characters arcs feeling rushed and nonsensical, even despite the copious amounts of exposition that are desperately trying to tie everything together. The choices made with Wanda in the third act are baffling, and I still don’t know what the takeaway is supposed to be by the end of the film. Her motivation is problematic in general, and I don’t like the use of the [insert plot device] corrupts the mind of the villain trope, which is becoming very overused in the MCU (Ant-Man, Winter Soldier) and just a lazy way of forcing a conflict where the villain stays redeemable. The new character (America Chavez) is a boring, underdeveloped plot device, while Strange himself doesn't even have a real arc. It's the kind of film where a lot happens, but very little leaves an actual impression. I’m not sure what happened, but I get the impression that a significant portion of this film was reworked and rewritten during post production. The action didn’t impress me whatsoever, but that’s been a case with these films for a while now (some of the stuff in Shang-Chi excluded). Some of the visuals look tacky and unfinished, the action’s a bunch of people shooting flashing lights at each other, shots don’t linger enough, people move like animated characters, it’s all the usual bs (and this is coming from someone who thinks the action and effects in the first one are still underappreciated to this day). Inbetween the first film and the sequel, Marvel has become a machine that’s now collapsing under its own pressure. If Disney would allow it, they really should go back to making 2-3 properties a year. The consistent mediocrity of their current output is killing their own longevity.
4/10
Oh, and your kids will be fine watching this. I’ve seen some uproar about the ‘horror’ and violence of the film, and it’s honestly not that shocking. There’s way more creepy stuff in some of the Harry Potter and Indiana Jones films (or just your average 80’s kids film in general).
In Captain Marvel, I didn’t like the main character, but I thought the movie around her was quite solid.
Black Widow is the exact opposite: I quite liked the two leads, but the movie surrounding them doesn’t really work.
Pros:
- Scarlett Johansson and Florence Pugh are easily the most entertaining part of the film.
- I liked the first act. It feels like Cate Shortland is trying to do an impression of a Jason Bourne movie. It’s fairly humourless, the cinematography is bleak, and the score is intense. It has a tone that no other MCU film has.
- The action (minus the final battle) is fairly well done. As per usual, less editing would’ve made it better, but at least it feels weighty.
Cons:
- The story itself isn’t that interesting. The themes and main mcguffin are oddly similar to Captain Marvel, though it’s not executed as well. The villains also fail to make an impression.
- This movie really loses its identity as it goes along, to the point where it turns more into a generic Marvel movie as it goes on, and eventually a generic action blockbuster by the third act. Everything gets way too big and bloated for its own good.
- Not a fan of the Russian accents, they sound very tacky. Just let everyone speak with a normal American accent, I can look past the fact they’re Russians. Besides, they even had a story based reason to ditch the Russian accents entirely.
- I found David Harbour quite cringeworthy in this.
- The main characters are protected by strong plot armour. Most characters should’ve been killed 3-4 times based on the things that happen during the action scenes. This isn’t even a ‘suspend your disbelief, it’s an action movie’ situation, it gets really ridiculous, to the point where it’s almost Fast and Furious level.
- The pacing is a bit inconsistent, you really feel it slowing down during the second act.
Finally, I want to address that I already find the use of Nirvana songs in movies like these quite distasteful, but the cover that's used during the credits literally sucked all the life out of the song.
4.5/10
If this film is a cake, then it’s got the best possible frosting you could wish for. The cake itself, however, isn’t great.
I’ve always had a strange relationship with these films. I don’t really care for the Raimi films (I think they’re overly cheesy, poorly acted and dated, though don’t expect anyone from around my age to admit that), the Webb films are fine (really like the first one, second one’s a mess) and I’ve really liked the 2 recent ones (not as much as Into the Spiderverse, but still good in their own right).
Compared to the previous 2, this one pretty much ditches the John Hughes aesthetic as it goes along, and it goes into full on, operatic superhero mode.
Unfortunately, it is another one of those project that puts nostalgia and fan pandering over story and character, the kind of blockbuster we’re seeing over and over again in a post Force Awakens world.
This story is completely hacked together, consisting of so many contrivances, conveniences and established characters acting out of character that it becomes a bit of a shitshow ( Doctor Strange, a genius, is being tricked by teenagers; Peter not knowing about the consequences of the spell is a very forced way to set the plot in motion; Ned being able to open portals is quite ridiculous when the Doctor Strange movie made a point about how hard that is to learn; why is Venom in the universe given how they set up the rules of the multiverse, and the list goes on ). The problem is that they needed to take that bullet in order to make the film they wanted to make here (or rather, the film fans wanted to see), but that doesn’t make it the right choice by any means, because it leads to a nonsensical film with a rushed pace.
Look, you can nitpick this film to death ( why would a university publicly admit that MJ and Ned are rejected because of their connection to Peter? ), but that’s not even my point. It’s heightened and not meant to be taken that seriously, I get that, but you at least need some form of internal logic, you cannot just do these unearned things because the plot demands it.
It’s not all bad though, Holland’s Spider-man still has a very good arc with some great emotional beats in it, and they make some very bold choices towards the end that I hope they stick with. It’s very similar to the first Fantastic Beasts, so I hope they don’t pull a Crimes of Grindelwald by retconning everything .
The acting is great, Holland and Zendaya give their best and most mature performances yet, and the villains are all good. I really like that they toned Dafoe down a little bit.
It looks fine. It has some of the best cinematography out of the trilogy, but some of the action looks very animated (again, stop touching up the suit, just let it wrinkle ffs) and unfinished, which is probably because this thing was rushed out, as we know.
For instance, there are some really wonky shots in the scene where Spider-Man fights Doctor Strange, the close-ups with Benedict Cumberbatch look like a weather forecast on television.
The references to the previous incarnations are a bit of a mixed bag. I like that they progressed some stuff and did interesting things with the things they referenced ( for example, you really feel like time has passed with Tobey and Andrew, they’re not giving a copy of their original performances, which is also a great excuse to tone down the awkwardness and lack of personality in Tobey’s version. Also, the banter between them is very nice, of course ), but most of it plays like a pandering greatest hits compilation. I don't need Dafoe to say you know, I'm something of a scientist myself again, it is nothing but a cheap attempt to trigger my nostalgia button.
Finally, it also has some of the worst tonal balance and comedy out of the trilogy, especially with some of the lines that are given to Benedict Cumberbatch.
5/10
In summary/TLDR: great idea for Sony’s bank account, but the seeds for this needed to be planted much earlier in order to make it a good film.
Damn, it must really suck to have been snapped while being on a plane.
Pros:
Cons:
6/10
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
This is one of Marvel Studios’ riskier projects, the hyperlink structure combined with the villain being the main character immediately makes it stand out in the genre. It’s because of those two aspects that the film works as well as it does. Thanos is a great character with an interesting motivation. The animation is so detailed and lifelike that it never fails to bring out the emotion, in fact I’d argue that the scenes between him and Gamora have the most emotional punch (courtesy of Zoe Saldana and Josh Brolin, who both put in a really solid performance). The balancing of all the different plot lines is also quite well done as there’s a relevancy to each one, nor does the tone feel too disjointed at any point. Some transitions or the sudden pop culture riffing during serious scenes can be awkward, but it’s handled about as well as it could. The exposition is handled tastefully and kept to a minimum, it instead chooses to focus on unexpected interactions between characters from different branches of the Marvel universe, which is the more exciting part. I’m less into the action and filmmaking, however. Not a lot about the camerawork or score jumps out to me, I feel like what little vision the Russos brought to their previous MCU projects is completely lost here. The washed out colour palette (which for some reason is slightly more vibrant during scenes in space) and obvious music embellishments don’t evoke all that much. The staging and editing of the action is a little too quick for my liking, the moments that are meant to be memorable don’t leave much of an impression because the editing doesn’t take its time to punctuate the stunts properly. Some of the CGI also feels a little weightless, for example Stark’s suit looks and feels like its made from paper. The resulting scenes, such as the final battle on Titan, feel more like small scale, digital mush than the big epic scenes they’re aiming for. Once the film decides to slow down for the dramatic conclusion, I find its intent to be manipulative and disingenuous. I felt that way after watching it the first time in the cinema, and after every ‘death’ in this movie having been retconned in one way or another, it turns out I was right. Even in its riskier films, Marvel will find ways to take most of the edges off. Overall, it’s still decent but it’s lost a lot of its flavour for me over the years.
6/10
I can't be the only one who sees the irony in a company like Amazon being the producer of this show.
When you’re rooting for the dinosaurs to eat most of the characters (especially Franklin) during the movie, something’s not quite right.
What do you call a movie in which fantastic beasts have 15 minutes of screentime, and a character named Grindelwald commits 1 or 2 crimes? Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald? That’d be weird, right?
Pros:
- JK’s imagination. Even when a movie messes up as much as this one does, it’s still one of the most charming and imaginative universes put to screen.
- Pretty well directed with great performances
- Newt (gets more development here) and Jacob
- Queenie’s storyline (if you pay close attention, I think it all adds up)
- The beasts, who are reduced to tools for Newt here, are a fun and creative addition
- The climax, Grindelwald’s speech and motivation
- Visuals, score and CGI (this was especially improved after the first film)
- Action scenes (opening scene and bookstairs chase)
Cons:
- Incredibly incoherent (they really should’ve scrapped a lot of characters and their storylines, in my opinion: Leta, Nagini, the black wizard, and even Dumbledore, as they don’t contribute a lot to this particular story).
—> Also, a lot of scenes are pointless (like the underwater creature)
- Two characters are still incredibly annoying (in my opinion those are Credence and Tina), although I’m not sure it’s the writing or acting that makes me hate them so much
- The ending feels like bad fan fiction; good twists should have subtle hints, JK should know this above anyone else
- Too much exposition
- A few scenes are underlit, or too dark
- Some continuity errors (and no, I’m not just talking about the one that has already been reported everywhere)
- The CGI on those cat creatures wasn’t that great
4/10
I got massive GTA 5 vibes from this. Just look at it: heists, hijacking cars, more heists, criminals being portrayed as eccentric & nuts, planning heists in an abandoned urban building; hard to miss the influence.
It still feels like an Edgar Wright film though. In fact, it very much starts like one of his comedies, but then it takes a complete tonal shift around the halfway mark. It becomes much darker, and it’s suddenly driven by tension instead of jokes.
A lot of movies can’t pull that off, but this one does simply because you can look at this premise as lighthearted, but there’s nothing too ridiculous or stupid for it not to work as a serious thriller either.
The directing and editing are really stylish and inventive, the performances are good, plenty of character development (a lot of which is done visually), excellent music selection, and there are a few twists in the second half I didn’t see coming.
My only complaint is that the romance subplot starts a bit clunky, but it evens out as the film goes along.
8.5/10
Nothing to say really besides: that’s how you do it!
This has without a doubt the most impressive stunts of the franchise, and it really knows how to use its characters and challenge them. There’s a lot of propulsive energy, lush cinematography and great editing. Lorne Balfe does a great Hans Zimmer impression, and Chris McQuarrie does a great Chris Nolan impression. Alright maybe I’m oversimplifying there, because I have to commend McQuarrie for doing another stylistic reinvention of the franchise, the cinematography and general feel aren’t just that of Rogue Nation 2.0. I’m not even sure if the constant evolution of this franchise comes from a place of creative ambition or commercial opportunity, but at least it keeps the films fresh. Some of its core elements will always remain the same, however. For example, the plot’s once again just a vehicle for all the juicy stuff. You could call it out for being generic or basic, but they find so much creativity and fun in these tropes that it becomes very entertaining (intrigue, the mask sequences, the craziness and constantly rising intensity). Sure, there’s a very predictable twist at the end of the second act, but more often than not, it managed to surprise me. Henry Cavill is a great new addition, bringing back Rebecca Ferguson was the best choice they could’ve made, and Pegg & Rhames remain the reliable anchors that add some heart & humour. It’s all exceptional stuff, it could very well go down as the best action franchise in history if the next films stick the landing.
9/10
This will probably become more beloved than Dune for being a bigger, more action driven film. Personally I prefer the first film by a long shot, but there's a lot to like here. I loved Paul's new journey for this installment as it doesn't develop in the way you'd expect based on the ending of the first film. The themes of colonialism, false prophecies and religion reach a level of depth that cannot be found in other sci-fi/fantasy contemporaries like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars; this film certainly made me understand why this story is taken so seriously as a piece of literature. Despite the source material being so old, there's still something new and refreshing about it. You don't often see major Hollywood productions calling out religion as a manipulative force helping the people in power. On top of that this brilliantly subverts the concept of the hero's journey we've become accustomed to by everything that was in one way or another inspired by Dune. The acting is pretty great, Timothée does a great job at playing the transition Paul goes through. Despite his boyish looks I was sold on his performance as the leader of the Fremen. Rebecca Ferguson and Javier Bardem are also scene stealers. The visuals are once again mindblowing, in terms of set/costume design, cinematography and CGI this is as close to perfection as you could get to right now. The vision and scope of this movie are truly unmatched, which leads to some breathtaking sequences that I'll remember for a while (sandworm ride; the black/white arena fight; knife fight during the third act).
However, for all the praise I have for Dune: Part 2, I think Denis is being uncharacteristically sloppy with this film. First of all, Bautista and Butler feel like they're ripped from a different franchise altogether. Their over the top, cartoonish performances are more suited for something like Mad Max than the nuanced world of Dune. The bigger cracks start to appear when you look at the writing. The brief moments where the movie pokes fun at religious zealots through Javier Bardem's character, while funny, probably won't age very well. Like the first movie, it has a tendency to rely too much on exposition and handholding, a problem which might be worse here. I feel like a lot of the subtlety is lost in order to make the movie more normie proof, and that's quite annoying for a movie with artistic ambitions like this one. For example, there's this scene where Léa Seydoux seduces Austin Butler's character, and everything you need to know as a viewer is communicated through Butler's performance. Cut to the next scene, where Seydoux is all but looking at the camera saying "he's a psychopath, he's violent, he wants power, etc.". I just feel like compared to Villeneuve's precise work on Blade Runner 2049, he's consciously dumbing it down here. It's understandable and somewhat excusable for a complex story like Dune, but he occasionally takes it too far for my liking. Then there's the love story subplot between Chani and Paul, which almost entirely misses the mark for me. It feels rushed, there's no chemistry between the actors and some of the lines are painfully cheesy. Because of that, the emotional gutpunch their story eventually reaches during the third act did little for me. Finally, I'm a little dissatisfied with the use of sound. I loved the otherworldly score Zimmer came up with for the first Dune, however this film is so ridiculously bombastic and low-end heavy that it starts to feel like a parody of his work with Christopher Nolan. For the final action beat of the film Villeneuve cuts out the film's score, and it becomes all the more satisfying for it.
Overall, I recommend this film, however maybe temper those expectations if you're expecting a masterpiece. There's a lot to admire, but it's flawed.
6.5/10
Are you feeling nostalgic for movies like Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Elektra, Ghost Rider and The Punisher?
Well, you’re in luck.
Easily the worst comicbook film since Hellboy (2019), but I doubt that’s to many people’s surprise.
It’s produced by Avi Arad and written by the guys who did Power Rangers, Gods of Egypt and The Last Witch Hunter.
Its director has never made anything noteworthy, and the lead is an overrated, pretentious hack whose performances have derailed many films over the past ten years.
It’s exactly what you think it’s going to be: dated, nonsensical, overblown and completely soulless.
It’s got crappy acting, predictable story devices, weak dialogue, weird editing choices, everything looks cheap and blue; you probably get the gist of it by now, especially if you’ve seen those movies I mentioned earlier.
This is nothing more than a quick cash in by a studio who thinks they can sell anything for as long as you slap Marvel’s name in front of it.
And they’re probably right, so who can blame them for making it?
2/10
Look, I'm very much in favor of giving directors the creative freedom to put their own spin on whatever they're adapting.
In fact, I think it's quite shallow and close-minded to judge an adaptation against its source material, pretending as if that's meant to be some holy grail of perfection.
That being said: the whole appeal of the Uncharted games in the first place is that they feel like a mix of Indiana Jones and Mission Impossible, with this sassy, horny, shit-talking protagonist at the center of it.
This movie captures neither of those aspects, and replaces them with basic movie tropes.
It doesn't feel like the aforementioned franchises. Instead, it looks and feels like your generic, throwaway action movie that usually stars The Rock (e.g.Rampage, Red Notice, Skyscraper).
Tom Holland plays Spider-man with attitude. He's not playing (a younger version of) Nathan Drake.
Mark Wahlberg plays Mark Wahlberg.
Like, why was this project treated like a tax write-off?
It has everything a Hollywood executive could want: the source material is cinematic, action packed, fun, and best of all: it has a built in audience.
This could've easily been the next big summer franchise if this was given a proper treatment. It should be much easier to get this right than other videogame based adaptations.
So why is Avi Arad producing this? Why is Ruben Fleischer directing this? Why is this script burning through four games of material? Why is the dialogue so clunky and unfunny? Why is the casting so lame? Why does it look like plastic, when the cinematographer of this thing shot Last Night in Soho and Oldboy?
Fuck.
3.5/10
This is a fascinating watch, it’s such a great insight into filmmaking.
I’d advise anyone to watch this and the theatrical cut back to back, you’ll learn so much about the process, rearranging scenes, editing, etc.
Pros:
- Compared to BvS: the script is much more structured, coherent, and simple. Also, this film doesn’t try to have any political depth or social commentary, which is a plus because that requires a filmmaker with subtlety, and Snyder is no such filmmaker. Finally, it doesn’t make any major mistakes like the Martha scene or Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.
- Compared to the theatrical cut: it does a much better job at fleshing out the characters. This particularly helps for Cyborg and Steppenwolf. It kinda turns Cyborg into the coolest character of the DCEU. Also, the editing of the action scenes is much better.
- I love that it has a big, epic tone. The storytelling feels like it takes a lot of inspiration from Lord of the Rings.
- Some great character moments, particularly with Alfred (I also liked Flash running back in time, the killing of Steppenwolf and Aquaman’s scene with Vulko ). There are actually quite a few laughs in this, more so than you’d expect from a Snyder film.
- The score is good (ignoring the overplayed WW theme).
Cons:
- It looks kinda hideous. There is an artificial and fake feeling to most of the scenes. The way it’s directed and shot can only be described as cheap and a visual overkill.
- Casting. Some of the main actors aren’t competent enough to star in a film like this. As long as they keep Momoa, Gadot and Miller, these films will always feel like discount Avengers films.
- It kinda drags, there are some scenes that could’ve been cut or shortened in order to improve the pacing. This is one of the things the theatrical cut does way better, even if it’s much more bland as a cut.
- The Flash still runs and acts like a moron. It particularly stands out in this cut because his Looney Tunes-esque antics are cringeworthy and don’t fit here, and his character still feels very barebones.
- Like BvS, the setting up of future films feels very clunky and forced.
- Though nowhere near as bad as in BvS, I once again noticed some painfully overwritten and forced dialogue.
In short:
Is it better than the theatrical cut, or BvS? Yes.
Is it a good movie? Not by any metric.
3.5/10
More garbage from Zaddy, this is a modern blueprint for what not to do when you’re making operatic sci-fi/fantasy. You could point at the obvious issues, such as the worldbuilding and story ripping off every other property in existence without putting much of its own spin on it (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Dune, Harry Potter, Mad Max, Excalibur, Seven Samurai, The Matrix to only name a few), but that doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of what’s wrong here. Snyder’s often praised for being this great visual stylist, but with Rebel Moon he might just deliver his most poorly directed film. Multiple shots are out of focus, the score is really manipulative and overblown, the staging of the action feels amateurish, there’s often a lack of proper depth of field (it kinda feels like those Star Wars shows on D+ due to the poor use of the volume stages) and he’s generally wanking off way too much with all the slo-mo here. Moreover, this has one of the worst scripts of the year due to all of the cheesy, overwitten dialogue and ridiculous amounts of exposition. It’s very hard to find a scene in this where the presentation and writing are somewhat organic or manage to create meaning in a way that feels artistically instinctual. Instead, it’s this lifeless mismatch of stale ideas. Add to that the fact that Snyder doesn’t know how to emphasize the strengths of the limited performers he’s working with here (besides Hounsou and Hopkins, who can handle themselves regardless of the director), and you can only conclude that Disney made the right decision by rejecting this.
1.5/10
Incredibly uninspired.
I haven’t seen one of these in a while, but even I noticed that a lot of its visuals and ideas are directly lifted from better comic book movies.
And it’s ugly, really ugly. Way too heavy on the generic orange/teal color palette, way too much slomo, not a single ounce of tangibility.
They should've just gone all in with making the artifice a stylistic choice, make it look like 300 or something. The hybrid of stylized CGI noise with a world that’s supposed to look at least somewhat real doesn’t work.
The movie itself will have lost any sense of relevancy within a couple of weeks. Yes, despite ‘changing the hierarcy of power in the DC Universe’, there’s not much of interest going on here.
I just feel bad for Dwayne Johnson, the man clearly has a talent that suits this type of film, but he’s stuck in a time where adrenaline driven action filmmaking is at its absolute blandest. This needed way more bite and edge in order to cover up for the basic premise. It’s such a shrug of a movie as is.
3.5/10
Ouch.
The visuals are breathtaking, as already shown by the trailers.
ScarJo is trying, you can tell that she wants this to be her new franchise.
It's edited quite nicely, it's got a (simple) story, and it's coherent.
So where did it go wrong?
One of the problems is that it takes away all of the philosophical depth from the original.
Well, that means you can still enjoy it from a simple action flick perspective, right?
Good luck with that.
This film has such a ridiculous amount of exposition, that it badly hurts the enjoyment of the film.
Many sequences consist of characters just talking to each other, and explaining the plot.
Things are definitely shown, but then the filmmakers don't think we're able to put two and two together, and hence add another explanatory scene.
As a result of that, the film doesn't take its time to develop the characters, meaning you won't care about them.
Top it off with an awful performance from Juliette Binoche, and you have your modern style over substance film.
3.5/10
A really cool idea for an allegory, but it could’ve, and should’ve, gone a lot deeper with its social commentary.
A lot of it feels half baked and not all that sharp.
Also, the characters are flat, and it leaves you with a lot of questions that needed to be cleared up (Why do people go to this place? Who’s behind it? Etc.)
Kind of a mess, but also some great action and cinematography
After the 2014 Godzilla film, people demanded a dumb monster movie.
The result is something that joins the ranks of Jurassic World 2, Pacific Rim 2 or Rampage.
Happy now?
Pro's:
- Creature design/VFX.
- The set up for the 3 main human characters (the idea that drives them).
Con's:
- Massively overblown (especially at the end).
- Too much exposition and way too plot driven. Emphasizing the plot is never a good idea when you make a film like this.
- The dialogue in this is awful, and does the actors no favours.
- The characters are hollow shells, and constantly act in unnatural ways. Especially what they did with Vera Farmiga's character felt lazy and not earned.
- It overuses the orange and teal look to a degree where Zack Snyder would be jealous of it.
- If you thought the final season of GoT had a lot of deus ex machina and 'plot armour' moments, just know that you've seen nothing yet.
- The action scenes in this are incoherent and underlit, and therefore hard to follow.
I find it funny that whenever we get one of these, the take away for most always seems to be: too much focus on the humans, not enough on the monsters!
Well, here's the thing: you can't really develop characters like Godzilla or King Kong, so watching them for 2 hours walk through buildings and punching things is going to get dull very fast.
Therefore, you need the human focus.
You know which director knows this? Steven Spielberg.
You know which movie knows this? Jurassic Park.
So instead of demanding more shallow elements for the next one, let's maybe ask for the filmmakers to develop the characters for once, and stop focussing on a plot we've seen hundreds of times at this point.
2.5/10
Good world building, I would've preferred it the Pokemons looked more like animals and less like cartoons, but this Roger Rabit approach will do. Also, decent cinematography and score. But, the script’s complete ass (conveniences, unnecessary exposition, uninteresting characters without development, extremely predictable storyline etc.) aside from some of Pikachu’s snarky lines, so you’ll probably get bored at some part.
4.5/10
This is so bland and inessential, they might’ve as well put it directly on Disney Plus. Why are we investing 300 million dollars in an action/adventure flick starring an 80 year old grandpa? Look I have a lot of respect for Harrison Ford, but everything that’s wrong with this movie is connected to the larger issue of him and the franchise being way past their expiration date, so this never should’ve been greenlit in the first place. Nothing is offensively bad here, but it’s more a case of wrong decisions piling onto each other.
I understand Lucasfilm’s decision to hire a director who just delivered two crowdpleasers in a row, both of which were acclaimed by normies and snobs alike. Mangold understands what makes the world and character work, but he doesn’t get the soul. Right from the opening scene, the movie looks drab, underlit and generic. There’s almost no imagination to the set pieces, and some of the more impressive stuntwork is undone by poor effects work. Take the Tuctuc chase. Ford’s stunt double puts in the work for the wide shots, but when you cut to a close-up of characters in front of a green screen, you’re not exactly selling the sequence. It’s not going to stick on my brain, it’s too unremarkable. Again, what’s the point of making an Indiana Jones movie if there’s no viscera or imagination to the action?
Then there’s the story, which is also very by the numbers and low on risk. It feels like wheel spinning, which in theory could be fine (the Bond franchise got away with that for decades) but there’s nothing to hold my interest. Some of the new mechanics introduced during the third act I found to be underwhelming, and this is coming from someone who didn’t mind the inclusion of aliens in the last film. All of the new characters are boring and underdeveloped (especially the villain), despite the actors putting in decent performances. It’s quite funny how this suffers from the same problem as Furious 7, where villains will show up on the same location as our heroes despite there being no story reason for it. Occasionally there’s a brief fun interaction, or a fun set, or a good visual idea (like the final shot, for example), but that’s not enough to fill its bloated runtime.
4/10
I believe that RLM in their review of the last one compared these movies to Taco Bell.
Everything has the same 5 ingredients, just placed in a different order.
It’s hard to argue with that after seeing this film.
It’s plagued by the exact same problem as the Terminator franchise; the creatives behind it are clueless on how to expand the franchise beyond the lore of the classics.
As a result, you get these rinse and repeat movies that are high on the nostalgia bait and devoid of anything interesting.
This somehow manages to be the worst one of the trilogy, I’d say it’s about on par with something like Jurassic Park III.
It’s somehow the dumbest Jurassic film (no, I haven’t forgotten about the military subplots in the previous 2, but this one literally introduces a new dinosaur nicknamed the ‘Giga’ and an evil company called ‘Biosyn’) with some of the cringiest dialogue and acting I’ve seen in a long time, none of which is embraced by the filmmakers. I think it’d play much better if this material was treated like a spoof, or at the very least more tongue in cheek (could’ve used more hallucinations of a dinosaur screaming “ALAN!”). It’s trying so hard to be sincere and Spielbergian, but it doesn’t work.
Moreover, the new characters are still either boring clichés or annoying, it looks too glossy, it’s way too long given how little’s going on, action’s alright but nothing that’s truly impressive or visceral; it’s just a bland mush of forgettable nothingness, and Jeff Goldblum’s charisma can’t save any of it.
3/10
These new Disney+ series are developing into the the modern, overbudgeted equivalent of direct-to-video films from the ‘90s.
In an age where popular and accessible television is continuously pushed to new and exciting heights (Daredevil, Money Heist, Ted Lasso, Stranger Things, Arcane to name a few), these recent shows banking on the Star Wars and Marvel brands feel amateurish, schlocky, and often read like bad fan fiction.
Look, Boba Fett in the original trilogy is nothing more than a visual.
He’s not really a character, I think he has about 4 or 5 lines, but he became popular because of his look.
You can’t just throw me in a story where he’s the main character and expect me to care without putting in the work.
It’s a show that operates in Disney’s new business model of throwing references, ‘member berries and empty spectacle on the screen, while the important and engaging stuff (character, story, drama, emotion, filmmaking) are reduced to an afterthought.
Granted, that’s pretty much the same problem that I have with a lot of IP related content from the past couple of years, but this show in particular feels so calculated, focus tested and cynical, it’s gross.
Even the production kinda sucks this time around (compared to The Mandalorian), it looks really ugly and washed out, more like Marvel than Star Wars.
Where is the voice of Jon Favreau?
Where is the voice of the director of Iron Man, one of the most character driven and vibrant blockbusters of the past 20 years?
This show is not even close to being up to par in just about every sense.
Great storytelling and concepts, it may be weird and even inaccesible for some folks, but it’s also very creative, original and bold. The characters are fantastic and well rounded, and they all inhabit a NY that’s captured it in a very unique way. That’s mostly a result of the animation, which grasps the attention immediately because it’s so boundary pushing and atmospheric. It’s just hard to find any weaknesses in it. The comedy is strong and tasteful, it doesn’t drag, the voice acting is excellent and all of the different Spiderman add to the story in their own way. I’m not as much of a fan of some of the bland autocrooning in the soundtrack (that’s probably the biggest thing that might make this seem dated in the future), though I generally still like most of the musical choices made here.
8.5/10
