Jordy

VIP

8

I'm kinda sick of arthouse films copying the Nicolas Winding Refn aesthetic, but if you're gonna do it this well, I can't complain. Love the synth score and neon aesthetic, it's easily its strongest asset. Unfortunately, the script and overall direction are junk. I feel like it's trying to give you the Brian de Palma/John Carpenter version of something like Bound or Thelma & Louise, and if that sounds like an awkward mix of tones, you'd be right. I really didn't care for the romance that's set-up during the first act due to the awkward dialogue, flat characterization and lack of chemistry between the two leads. Once the crime plot develops, it has a hard time justifying the motivations of characters in a way that doesn't feel contrived or stupid. It gradually becomes more camp as it goes along, but not in a way that I found particularly rewarding. By the time it reaches its conclusion I was laughing at how unapologetically trashy the film gets, leaving any real attempt at substance in the rear view mirror in favour of something more groteseque, which falls completely flat. Leading up to those moments, it kinda feels like the film wants to have it both ways, because it integrates these poorly executed surrealist moments and an underdeveloped theme of female body language that doesn't quite jell with the rest of the plot. It's one of those films that would've benefitted from less pretension and instead focussing on making sure that you care about the central relationship, because the end result here is quite a mess.

4/10

This is a movie for people who are into Woody Allen type stuff, it reminded me of Marriage Story in particular. The dialogue and acting are definitely the main driving force here, and Sandra Hüller delivers a pretty great performance. The core ideas that the movie gets at about relationships, guilt and justice are compelling, but it’s not always told in the most efficient way. The pieces ultimately click into place in an unexpected way, but it takes a clunky, elaborate set-up to get there. Tightening up the beginning and very end would’ve improved the experience a lot for me, mostly because I wouldn’t have to hear that stupid 50 Cent song 80 times. Moreover, due to the story structure and constraints of a legal drama, the movie suffers from an overabundance of exposition. There are so many scenes where I wish they’d just cut to whatever the characters are talking about, instead of a boring close-up with someone reminiscing over a memory. I’m also not the biggest fan of how the courtroom scenes were staged, some elements are on the cheesy side. The prosecutor in particular felt like a Suits character, he doesn’t work for me in this more realistic context. Finally, the technical aspects of this movie are just fine. As is often the case with movies like this, the cinematography is competent but lacking in style or vision, nor is the score very noteworthy. All in all, it’s adequate but the accolades are completely overblown.

6/10

This is essentially Spielberg's Almost Famous. It's way too sentimental and white, which is a complaint that's often thrown at Spielberg's work (one I don't always agree with myself), but this is undeniably him at his schmaltziest. Every genuine emotion is buried under such a deep layer of cheese that the entire picture ends up feeling phony and disingenuous to me. There's an unironic record scratch sound effect in here at some point, and it's just so corny. Michelle Williams is also a major victim of the direction, her performance and the dialogue she's given are awful. The other performances are passable at best, with Gabriel LaBelle and Paul Dano being the clear standouts. Visually I did not find the movie to be that compelling, it's overly reliant on a generic orange/teal color grade, but there are some strong moments that illustrate the power of visual filmmaking very well. John Williams' score is probably one of his most forgettable ones, it sounded like a composer who's trying to do an imitation of Alexandre Desplat. I just don't really see the overall appeal. Emotionally it clearly doesn't work for me, but I also find it to be lacking in substance. We don't learn that much about Spielberg as a filmmaker or artistic force, it's mostly focussed on him as a person, which doesn't interest me as much. He probably poured his soul into this project, but to me it's a perfect example that artists should not be in charge of their own memoir, because it doesn't focus on the interesting stuff.

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

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.

It’s funny to know that this movie was intended to come out before the pandemic, because by releasing it now it might provide some unintentional food for thought for the morons who believe that a certain virus was actually conceived in a lab.
I genuinely wonder if those people will read that far into this film, I’d find it deeply amusing.

The good news is that there are definetely a lot of things this does better than Spectre.
The action is memorable and way more visceral (though it doesn’t quite surpass the Mission Impossible Fallout bar) and the characters are generally more interesting.
I loved the women in this in particular, they all have distinct personalities and they’re not flawless human beings or overpowered (e.g. Ana de Armas is bubbly and fun, but at the same time she’s inexperienced and chaotic), like some blockbusters tend to do.
At the same time, we shouldn’t pretend that this film invented strong female characters for Bond, especially after we’ve had Eva Green and Judi Dench.
Meanwhile, James Bond himself has a very satisfying arc in this film, which isn’t too dissimilar to Tony Stark’s arc in Avengers Endgame , with a bold pay off in the third act. I’m happy that this film gave us confirmation that Mads Mikkelsen didn’t end up castrating Bond during that scene in Casino Royale.
It’s paced very well, more like a traditional action film and less like a drama, which was the case for Skyfall and Spectre. Don’t let the runtime intimidate you, it doesn’t feel longer than 2 hours.
And finally, the whole thing just looks great, it’s produced excuisetely. The cinematography isn’t quite Skyfall level, but Roger Deakins is an impossible bar to clear for any cinematographer.

Unfortunately, this film really struggles with its tone, bouncing between some cartoony stuff and very dark, dramatic moments.
It wants to honor the traditional Bond stuff, but at the same time it can’t let go of the roots of the Daniel Craig iteration, which makes it feel like an uneven artistic vision, because the foundation of Craig’s Bond rests on this idea that this isn’t the traditional Bond.
It’s going for the same tone as Skyfall, meaning its pretty serious, while also incorporating some campy stuff with the plot and the villain (but never going into straight up silly territory, like Spectre).
The problem is that you could still take the villain and the plot seriously in Skyfall (Bardem is still scary despite the camp, the hacking plot feels grounded), and that isn’t the case here, the plot goes too much into sci-fi territory for that.
Also, Rami Malek didn’t leave much of an impression on me, the accent is wonky and he feels like a stock villain (very much like Waltz in the last film). There’s not really an interesting motivation there, or an interesting evil plan. It’s a campy and theatrical plan, and it feels very familiar.
Finally, this film can be fairly predictable at times (for example: Matilde being Bond’s daughter was extremely obvious, but they still try to somewhat play it as a twist. The same goes for Lea Seydoux being framed in prologue.).

So, it’s good, it pushes the creative boundaries of what a Bond movie is in some ways, which is the best stuff.
But I kinda hope they bring in someone with a fresh, fully realized artistic vision to really shake things up again for the next reboot.

7/10

Ps for the Bond producers: please, please make a spin off with Ana de Armas’ character.

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

Great movie, but what exactly are you trying to say, Peele?
How do I make sense of the weirdness in your film?

Are you trying to say that those who unite to build a wall, those who use their scizzors to divide other people in half, can’t see the light in the ‘US’?
Is the twist meant to indicate that we can’t be sure who’s on which side?
In other words: is this a big political metaphor, a critique against republicans?
Then again, you can also find themes about capitalism and class here, it’s so ambiguous and broad that it’s not being very precise on a subtextual level. Not that a movie has to, but this is a little too broad for my taste.

Still, great craftsmanship, really well acted, memorable, scary, funny, it’s very good.
The whole 300 million people are living underground reveal might be a little too much of a leap, I don’t think the movie was that fantastical up until that point (a similar problem that I have with Get Out, where the brain replacement twist kinda feels a little too out there compared to the movie preceding it).

7.5/10

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

For something that tries to be as dumb and meatheaded as possible, this is quite boring. There’s an art to making a good bad movie and filmmakers seem so clueless whenever these are attempted nowadays. Most of the people involved probably weren’t coked-up enough to make the end result entertaining, unlike when these were made in the 80s. Take Jake Gyllenhaal, he’s obviously a great actor but someone who’s way too introverted for this type of material. By comparison, Conor McGregor fits this movie like a glove and he’s easily the most entertaining part by playing the same persona we’ve become accustomed to over the years (even if the performance is obviously quite terrible). As far as I’m concerned, his introduction scene is the only memorable thing about the movie, it’s this moment where the movie very briefly finds the right tone. The rest of the film is surprisingly bland and tame. Sure, the throwaway characters, simple story and terrible dialogue were all a given, but even the set pieces aren’t memorable as they’re often poorly staged and lacking in viscera. Someone gets eaten by a crocodile and we don’t even get to see it, the background extras during the big bar fights look amateurish and the choreography/stuntwork (besides a decent final fight) is often way too dull. The 80s, GTA Vice City aesthetic that’s promised by the poster doesn’t show up, most of this film has no visual personality. Then there’s the music, which might just be the worst thing about all of this. Right from the opening scene we’re met with auditory vomit courtesy of a cameoing Post Malone, following that there are occasional musical interludes that don’t complement the vibe of the film and on top of that score is filled with the type of ‘badass’ guitar riffing found in car commercials. None of it works in harmony, and I don’t get who it’s targeting. Much like the rest of the film I needed more wild energy for it to work, as the overall experience feels too much like camp by committee.

2/10

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

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