The plot’s a little loose with this one, but that’s completely fine.
It’s mostly just a collection of very entertaining scenes, the story itself didn’t move me that much, though it’s an interesting spin on history.
Pitt and DiCaprio are perfect, the writing’s funny and witty (great characters), cinematography is very lush (love the attention to detail in the sets) and of course flawless music selection. Feels like Tarantino’s most mature film in many ways.
It does require a bit of homework though: it’s probably more fulfilling if you know beforehand who Sharon Tate and Charles Manson are. The movie might seem to lack a purpose if you’re unaware of them.
As per usual with Tarantino, some scenes are too long for their own good, would've been a lot better if the first two acts were shortened, and some of the moments from the voice over were included instead.
Also, the stuff with Margot Robbie feels a little tacked on. I get why she’s in there, but she has such little impact on most of this film. You can remove her scenes from the first two acts and the film would still make sense, and she’s in it quite a lot.
7/10
Undoubtedly Wes’ most political film, it’s very much a product of the Trump years.
It’s very good, though it could’ve been a little more bold as a metaphor.
I don’t think it says much more than don’t believe the propaganda that’s spread about the disadvantaged people of society , which seems like a very agreeable if you’re at least a little informed. I do like some of the other commentary in regards to corporatism and individuality though.
There were also a few minor parts where I started to get bored, but still: every shot is perfectly framed, the animation is gorgeous, the music’s outstanding and memorable, Wes’ trademark quirkiness is in there and makes the film very unpredictable, very good characters (especially the one voiced by Bryan Cranston), solid story and a heartwarming emotional core.
7.5/10
Very charming, funny and fun. The directing, cinematography, music selection and art direction are of course perfect.
Acting is great for the most part, didn’t quite buy the romance though (but that’s super hard to pull off with child actors, and the writing’s still great).
I also don’t think it’s as memorable as some of his other films, but still very impressive.
7.5/10
This thing has no business being this good. It has so many good characters, there are about 4-5 scene stealers in this movie. The script is consistently funny (thank god for the R-rating), occasionally bordering on being cheap and trashy, but it’s mostly clever. There’s a little too much handholding for my liking, but the amount of exposition is overall tolerable. The action is competently handled by Feig, even though he should’ve dialed back on the amount of slowmo. The acting is way above average for the kind of film that it is, even Melissa McCarthy is quite good in this. I just wish the craft was a bit better. The cinematography is by no means bad, but a lot of scenes are just a bunch of close-ups cut together. The score doesn’t really stand out in any way either. Still, this is that rare action/comedy crowdpleaser that can be enjoyed by just about anyone, and I respect it for that.
7/10
It’s a good story with well developed characters. Probably one of Danny Boyle’s most well directed and shot films (few too many Dutch angles, but ok) and lots of memorable music (not a fan of how they incorporated Paper Planes though, stripping the song from a lot of its meaning). I just don’t entirely get what the film’s trying to communicate on a thematic level. On the one hand it seems to imply that life experience is one of the most valuable tools one can have, but on the other hand it also acknowledges that most of what you’re seeing is just convenience and luck, which seem like conflicting points of view to me. The ending’s a little too cheesy for its own good, and the way it switches between English and Hindi throughout feels a bit weird and distracting (probably would’ve been better if they’d just committed to using one of the two). Still, I’d easily recommend it, just because it’s easy to get lost in, big and genuinely emotional.
6.5/10
A little overrated within the Danny Boyle catalogue.
Really great the cinematography in this, it’s a well aged product of its time. Love the dirty lo-fi quality, and even though the use of that technique has pioneered a lot of shit, it’s never used to cover up for its own cheapness here. In many ways it feels like two short films smashed together with a first half that’s driven by acting and characters, besides that it doesn’t do too much. I love the shots of the deserted city, but the characters are just fine (even a little cliché at points) and there’s not a lot action or intrigue. The supermarket scene also feels a bit out of place for me tonally. The second half, on the other hand, is great and the point where the film becomes more wild and substantive. The acting is good for the most part (though not really among the best work of Brendan Gleeson, Cillian Murphy and Naomi Harris), but the little girl is really bad. It’s hardly Danny Boyle’s best.
7/10
It’s very good, mostly carried by James Franco’s fantastic performance and the tension/horror.
The directing and editing are generally atmospheric and well done, though not all choices have aged as well. It can at times thread the line between being stylish and amateurish.
I also wish there was another interesting character besides Aron, which they could’ve done by fleshing out some of the people in the hallucinations a bit more.
But still, this is good and interesting all throughout, great use of sound during the climax and I love the dry guitar riff that plays throughout the film.
7.5/10
Got to say upfront that I'm not the biggest fan of this band; I find most of their songs lacking, which is often covered up with a sense of kitsch and theatricality. This might've subconsciously influenced my opinion, but having said that: this movie feels too generic and sanitized, strongly lacking in focus. I don't get why movies like this always feel the need to cover the entirety of someone's career/life, it's unnecessary and boring. This 'greatest hits compilation' approach leads to a film that's a bunch of clichés strung together into a narrative. Some of the editing isn't great, the pacing drags, it's very predictable, but Rami Malek's performance makes up for a lot. Just listen to a Queen record if you're in the mood, you'll probably get more out of it compared to watching this.
4.5/10
An incredibly annoying film that uses the current most overused comedy tropes (bathos, references, meta jokes) in the most uninspired and lazy ways. It brings absolutely nothing to the table besides exhausted clichés, and the filmmaking is boring at every turn.
“Hunt is the living manifestation of destiny!”
Probably the most plot driven MI film, so much so that it doesn’t even have a set piece during the third act. It really brings back that Hitchcock feeling that’s been missing since the original, the clever writing is as much of a draw as the action here. The set pieces are once again pretty spectacular and imaginative, the opera scene and motorcycle chase being among the franchise’s best. Ilsa Faust is the franchise’s best supporting character, the constant switching of allegiances was such a great idea to keep the audience guessing. Lane is one of the franchise’s better villains, though he’s not on the same level as Philip Seymour Hoffman. I also love how they realized that throwing in more Simon Pegg will automatically elevate any scene, his comedic and dramatic contributions to this franchise are still a little underappreciated. Technically it’s once again very accomplished, the cinematography by Robert Elswit is beautiful (and very different from his work on Ghost Protocol) and I’ll never get enough of hearing that theme song.
8.5/10
These premises never seem to fully click with me.
Idk, I just find this film, Edge of Tomorrow and Groundhog Day all a little too repetitive and lacking in propulsive energy.
It’s stylish and very 90s, though it can also be a little excessive at times.
It’s literally shot and edited like a music video for a 90s alternative band, and there’s constantly techno and breakbeat music playing in the background.
I like the two main characters, the acting’s pretty solid, and it definitely has a visceral and exciting quality about it, but what exactly did we accomplish with this butterfly effect gimmick?
Sure it’s kinda fun, but does it make up for the fact that you’re watching the same thing over and over again with some tweaks?
Still pretty decent though.
5.5/10
Quite a weird shift from TASM1, it’s a lot cartoonier and less gritty, but it doesn’t feel a lot like the Raimi trilogy either.
Its biggest problem is the lack of a narrative focus, it’s a bunch of subplots meshed together, some of which are desperately trying to set up future stories, and it doesn’t really work.
A lot of the dialogue sucks, the villains are just plain bad and poorly acted, and it’s a little too dumb, especially when it comes to character motivations and conveniences (even given how cartoony it is).
But, the central 2 characters and their chemistry work, the directing and cinematography are good, the action is well handled for the most part (besides that power plant scene, which looks like a cartoon) and it does have some great emotional beats that you don’t always get in blockbuster films.
There’s a scene between Sally Field and Andrew Garfield in this which features some actual great acting that you’re not likely to get in an MCU or DC film.
So it’s a film with some highlights and some great scenes, but it never was going to be a good film given its script.
But I will say that this whole narrative of it being even worse than Spider-man 3 is nonsense, simply because the acting alone is much better here, and the action isn’t a visual mess.
5/10
I always found this a bit too cheesy, even as a kid, and it’s kinda dated at this point, though I suppose most people aren’t quite willing to admit that (yet).
You can feel that this came out during a time where comic book movies weren’t taken seriously, and it aims at a younger audience than most of these films do nowadays.
The acting is very stiff and weird (it’s no surprise that it inspired so many memes), the dialogue can be clunky and awkward, the story is generic and predictable, the characters are fine but they also feel a lot like stereotypes and Goblin’s suit looks like it was designed by Joel Schoemacher, it’s too lame to take as seriously as the movie wants us to.
On the other hand, I do really love the scenes with JK Simmons, and I like how cinematic it feels, Raimi gives the film a lot of style. The action is pretty well done and can get surprisingly visceral.
But overall, I just don’t think it holds up, it really feels like a product of its time.
4.5/10
I like it a lot, even though it inspired so many studios to make greatest hits compilation films, most of which aren’t that good.
The reason why I’m letting it pass here is because it feels fresh, it does more than simply rehashing A New Hope.
It puts in the work of creating great new characters, the filmmaking techniques are very different compared to the original trilogy, and they do interesting things with the familiar stuff.
Take the original characters for example, all of them are taken to places that you wouldn’t expect based on the ending of Return of the Jedi.
Having said that, the starkiller base stuff is a bit boring and uninspired, even though there are still many great scenes in the third act.
8/10
It’s clearly one of those post-Die Hard films that tries to replicate the success of Die Hard, and it’s probably the one that does it best.
The creativity is all in the concept, and the execution is fantastic.
They squeeze every idea you can think of out of this concept.
It’s action heavy, tense all the way through, the stuntwork is well filmed and edited and you care just enough about the characters, though they could’ve been a little deeper (especially the villain, who kinda lacks a good motivation).
Its biggest problem is clearly the acting: Sandra Bullock and Dennis Hopper are fine, but Keanu and especially the supporting cast on the bus kinda suck.
Still, it’s a classic, and you should watch it.
7.5/10
A good set up for the finale, with some great cinematography and emotional beats.
I actually quite like the second act for one, it has this brooding, moody tone and you have some of the best acting from Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson in there.
There are quite a lot of action beats in it (not that many actual sequences though), which are mostly good, but I wasn’t a fan of how the chase near the end was edited together.
The logic can also be a little thin in places (What’s this mirror Harry suddenly has? Why were they only traced once, during that coffee shop visit? Why doesn’t Bellatrix recognize Ron and Hermoine after Order of the Phoenix? What are these distraction trumpets that Harry uses in the ministry sequence, and how did he get them?), which are mostly things that were omitted from the book and probably should’ve been in here somewhere to make the script a little tighter.
The animation style they used for the deathly hallows story was very creative, but I always found the hallows themselves to be a needless addition, overstuffing the plot with macguffins. The focus is on the horcruxes for 90% of this and part 2 regardless.
7/10
Entertaining in the exact same way that the later Fast and Furious installments are entertaining.
It’s stupid, gives you just enough to invest in the characters and some decent comedy.
The Rock wasn’t quite the moviestar he’s today, so it’s funny to see him being outshined by Sean William Scott on a few occasions.
Visually it’s pretty good, the soundtrack is surprisingly great.
The action is alright, there’s some good stuntwork in here, but sometimes there’s an overuse of close-ups.
The worst thing about it is the editing, which almost got me into disliking the film a few times.
It’s no cinematic masterpiece, but it’s exactly the film it wants to be and doesn’t try to be anything but that.
5.5/10
One of the most entertaining films I’ve seen in a long time.
It’s a really basic plot that gets elevated by the dialogue, violence, acting and stylish presentation.
Does it feel like a Tarantino movie?
Maybe, but this is much tighter and less indulgent than anything he’s made in years.
8/10
One of the few Marvel movies where you can notice the artistry that went into it.
This feels like someone’s vision, the story is layered and the conflict is relevant and interesting. The way it’s resolved doesn’t feel safe to me, it makes a pretty nuanced statement about protectionism that might seem agreeable to some, but I can assure you that it isn’t.
The camerawork also really stands out (one of the few Marvel movies with proper colour grading), costumes are terrific, the characters are very well drawn and the acting is great.
It does have some pacing issues in the middle, some of the action is poorly handled (the climax is kinda lackluster in a sense) and looks too artificial, and the main character kinda feels overpowered when he has the suit on, but it’s still easily one of Marvel’s best just because of what it gets right.
7.5/10
It’s the best one.
There are only two real contenders when it comes to the best Bond movie: this and Skyfall.
Skyfall stands out because of its artistry, whereas this one has the tightest script and the most memorable moments.
Moreover, it's a complete reinvention of the character (and franchise as a whole) with a more stripped back and raw approach in the same vein as Batman Begins and The Bourne Identity.
It's gritty, but they throw some clever jokes in there in order to make sure that it doesn't become a slog.
Daniel Craig kills it, and so do Mads Mikkelsen and Eva Green.
The script is tightly structured, unpredictable (two amazing twists in this), and the dialogue in particular stands out (the train scene is perfection, highly quotable stuff).
I can appreciate any script that makes me follow along with poker scenes, even if I’d never played poker when I first saw it.
From a technical standpoint, you can tell that the filmmakers took their time to put more effort into the visual style of the film compared to the previous ones, and it paid off, the camerawork is sleek and the colour pops a lot more.
It’s paced very well, the action is visceral and David Arnold nails it with the score (so does Chris Cornell with the song).
No complaints, it's a perfect popcorn movie all around.
9/10
Most Bond movies are kinda uninspired and interchangeable.
They’re good at giving the audience what they want, but because most installments aren’t interested in challenging the formula in any way, they don’t make for very visionary pieces of art.
That is not the case for Skyfall, you can feel the inspiration and vision that the filmmakers had for this one.
It stands out primarily as a result of it being driven by a concept and theme, rather than just action and tropes.
Sam Mendes directs the hell out of this movie, combining the gritty Daniel Craig era of Bond with some more traditional elements in a way that works very well (something he would subsequently fail at with Spectre).
There are some campy ideas in this (the whole hacking plot is complete nonsense if you know the slightest bit about hacking, Javier Bardem’s performance is over the top), but because they’re presented in a dark/sinister way, rather than a silly way, it doesn’t mess with the tone (kinda like Nolan did in his Batman movies).
The acting is great, the action is very well handled and memorable, it’s shot extremely well (Deakins should’ve easily won the Oscar for this), good music, and most importantly: all the new characters leave an impression.
Naomi Harris is very likeable, Berenice Marlohe gives an excellent performance for the little time she’s on screen, Ralph Fiennes has a nice little arc, and Javier Bardem is a terrific bad guy.
I only have one small nitpick, and it has to do with the whole ‘I wanted to get captured’ trope, which makes the plot a little less tight than it should be.
It worked for The Joker given how psychotic that character is, but here it just seems like forced nonsense.
I love that chase scene through the London underground that comes out of it, but there are quite a few conveniences in it because they lean into the ‘I planned all of this’ trope so hard.
8.5/10
Given what this franchise is, this is pretty much the perfect version of a Fast and Furious movie.
It isn’t some cinematic masterpiece, it’s still riddled with poor acting, laughable dialogue and underdeveloped characters, but it’s entertaining as hell.
The Rock is the perfect addition to this franchise, and I like that they got Ludacris and Tyrese back, as they help with elevating the tone as well.
The action is a lot less grounded than before, which works because it allows for more creativity and unpredictability.
It’s just great schlock, a perfect guilty pleasure.
6.5/10
The reason why this one sucks compared to the ones following it is simple: it takes itself seriously.
The filmmakers were still treating the franchise with dignity at this point, which is a bad idea, as these films are inherently shlocky and written like soap operas.
It looks quite nice, and there are some decent set pieces, but it’s all too grounded to be entertaining.
You can just tell that these movies work better when they’re heightened.
3.5/10
Very intriguing subject, executed with precision by Denis Villeneuve and his crew.
The man truly is an astounding filmmaker; there’s not a single shot with weak framing or bad lighting.
Cool art design, good performances, intelligent and interesting; we need more sci-fi like this to balance out the usual blockbuster schlock.
Its biggest problem is that none of the characters besides Louise are all that interesting.
Also, there’s a final twist with Jeremy Renner’s character that I found fairly predictable.
But still, a very inspired film with plenty of food for thought.
8/10
Good, but it’s kinda uninspired at the same time.
The main problem is the script: it doesn’t really drop the ball or anything, but you can tell that they didn’t have a good idea of what else to do with this character, and the stuff with Riz Ahmed feels tacked on.
Still, just like with the bad Bond movies, it has such an interesting main character that it’ll keep you engaged, even if the movie surrounding him could be better.
It has solid acting for the most part (Julia Stiles was quite bad though) and a few memorable action sequences (the whole riot scene in Greece is amazing from a directorial, cinematographic and editing perspective).
The music is great, it knows how to build tension and thrills, and this series hasn’t lost its visceral sensibilities.
I get why people call it a disappointment, but you also have to look at it from a broader perspective.
If you look at this as an isolated piece, judging the movie on its own merits (and not just in comparison to the original trilogy), you can only conclude that this is still above average for an action thriller - that standard being your annual Liam Neeson taken rip off.
6.5
It’s funny how people think of these movies as ‘realistic’.
Do people actually think an American intelligence agency is capable of pulling live footage out of a camera in a train station in London? Within like 5 minutes? Not to forget that this takes place in a pre smartphone era.
I know that paranoia and anxiety were a big part of culture post 9/11, and these movies play into that, but they’re far from being realistic.
I’d say they’re grounded, and it’s got a director at the helm who’s really good at selling the heightened stuff.
Having said that, this is one of the most thrilling and tense films I’ve seen.
Paul Greengrass is a master of building tension through visceral camerawork.
Sure, there’s a lot of handheld and shaky cam, but that style actually works in this film’s favour, because Greengrass knows how to use it without loosing a sense of clarity.
The story is again very solid, it’s got a surprising amount of memorable dialogue, the acting is solid, interesting characters, John Powell’s score is iconic, and there just isn’t a single dull moment.
High octane action filmmaking at its finest.
9/10
This is more of a traditional Tarantino film compared to volume 1.
It’s more dialogue driven and slow paced (in my opinion to a fault, it really drags at points).
Daryl Hannah and David Carradine are great.
The acting, action, visuals and music choices are once again very well done.
7/10
It’s basically a really simple genre film, but it’s stuffed with so many memorable action scenes, great characters, terrific music, dialogue, visuals and gore that it gets elevated to incredible heights.
It doesn’t suffer from the pacing issues that his film usually do, but Tarantino’s voice as a director can still be overly present and indulgent here and there.
To this day, I still find the bleeping of the bride’s name pretentious and unnecessary.
Other than that, it’s an absolute must watch.
8.5/10
This show is genius.
It’s brilliantly acted and scripted, though challenging at times.
I’ve known a few friends who gave up during season 2, and I understand why, but if you stick with it, the puzzle pieces will eventually all fall into place.
What’s even more rare (given that it’s a tv show) is that it is filled with truly great filmmaking, and it has its own artistic style, often amplified by perfect editing. The silent episode and one take episode are both high marks of television in my book.
Whenever people are framed in the bottom of the corner for their close up, you instantly know you’re watching Mr Robot.
The music is also instantly recognizable. It’s almost where the show gets a little too David Fincher-y, but it still hits regardless. Just the whole vibe of this show is a thing to behold.
Is it perfect? No, it’s hours of television, so that’s impossible.
If you pick up on what the influences of the show are, you’ll probably find some of the twists in season 1 predictable.
Season 2 can get really abstract and weird, and isn’t as satisfying by itself (though it works perfectly in the overall narrative).
And finally, a few characters don’t really get a satisfying conclusion in season 4.
But overall, it’s incredible, probably my favourite tv show of all time.
So much subtext about the 1%, mental health, our relationship with technology, capitalism and it brilliantly challenges the way you perceive hackers. You’ll think twice about whether they’re a good thing or not.
It clearly owes a lot to Booksmart, and while Booksmart makes bolder creative and visual choices, this is still very entertaining in its own right.
The comedy has a lot of bite to it, which is becoming increasingly rare nowadays.
7.5/10
