You really have to stick with it, because most of the weird stuff only starts to make sense in the final few episodes.
I love how this show took its time to fully delve into all the characters in the first half of the season, with some episodes highlighting one or two of the main characters.
The plot is rich and thematically interesting, and asks questions about meaning making and purpose in a world where no one seems to have answers for the things that happen.
Who do we believe? Scientists? Religious figures? Cult leaders?
Most of the characters have interesting arcs, but some of the B-storylines feel haphazard and unnecessary for the main plot (Tom/Wayne/Christine & Dean the dog killer), making the show less focussed than it should be.
Also, for as great as most of the acting is (Justin Theroux & Carrie Coon in particular), some of the younger actors aren’t all that great.
7.5/10
Feels more like a student film in terms of acting, directing, and writing.
It could’ve been really fun, if the writing wasn’t so extremely on the nose.
But then again, subtlety isn’t exactly America’s strongest suit, especially in terms of politics.
This effectively shows how the culture of stigmatized neighbourhoods in the UK promotes small, banal things blowing up and turning into hostile, unpredictable situations.
The core of it is solid, but the rest of the film leaves a lot to be desired.
It’s overacted, unfocussed and a tad too melodramatic.
The rapping would have been a nice addition, if it didn’t get on my nerves so quickly.
Most of it recaps what happened during the previous 15 minutes, which wouldn’t be necessary if you’d pay attention.
4/10
Yes, the design of the character is much better than what it was in the trailer.
This design change, however, came with a big trade off: less detail and more cartoony features.
With the new design, it looks as if a Pixar character was inserted into a live action film, which I find highly distracting.
It’s the exact same problem that I had with some of the Pokemon in the Detective Pikachu film from last year.
Look, if you want to make the creatures look cartoony, that’s fine, but then why don’t you make an animated film instead?
This feels like a weird blend of both worlds.
Also, let’s not forget that we’ve seen a realistic incorporation of fantasy creatures in the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings universes years ago, so it’s not like we can’t do it.
As for the film itself, let’s face it, it’s not very good.
The dialogue is very hit and miss, the plotting is as paint by numbers as you’d expect, the CGI already looks dated, and the acting often misses the mark.
I’ll give it a few points for its character development and cinematography, but those are the only positives I can find.
3.5/10
Not quite up to the usual Pixar standard.
The comedy and characters ultimately save the film.
It touches you in a way that only Pixar can, but it did so in quite a predictable way, I thought.
Moreover, it feels a bit slapped together, as if they’re making it up as they go along.
6/10
Pretty nice!
This is not as stylistically excessive and annoying as some of Ritchie’s previous work, but still messy and hard to follow at times nonethelesss.
Hugh Grant steals the film, with Charlie Hunnam being close second.
Some of the funny lines in it are gold, although there is also quite a bit of ‘it’s only funny because I’m saying it with a thick British accent’ comedy in it, which didn’t always sit right with me.
I hope that Ritchie continues to work with smaller budgets in the future, as this is so much better than his previous two dumpster fires.
7/10
Rarely have I seen a movie try and fail this hard.
The acting, style, editing, action and attempts at comedy are embarrassing.
2/10
It starts of pretty well, but then it gets better and better. There are a few places where the logic is a bit thin (not saying it doesn’t make sense, but you have to give it some leeway), and there are a few too many comedic touches for my taste, but other than that, this is a terrific film, powered by an Oscar worthy Elizabeth Moss (who won’t get nominated of course, because it’s not that type of film) and a talented director who will have Hollywood producers begging at his door after making this for a mere 7 million.
8/10
Kind of a mess, but also some great action and cinematography
I’d forgotten about it by the time I got to my car.
Once, the Lannisters and a Starks were more like brothers to each other.
This film is just great, it’s an amazing technical achievement. Let’s also not forget that the script elevates the experience by genuinly making you care about the main characters, something which Dunkirk completely failed at, for example. On the other hand, there are a few too many moments in the beginning where not much of interest is happening, and you’re just wandering along with these soldiers. You can’t complain about that for too long when it’s still a feast to look at, but I genuinly felt the movie picked up a lot more steam in the second half.
8/10
To everyone who thinks that this film failed because they didn’t have the trilogy mapped out from the start:
You guys do realize that almost nothing in Hollywood is planned out in advance, right?
And that’s completely fine, especially if you have a smart filmmaker at the helm.
Go and watch some documentaries about Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy, he’ll be the first to tell you that they didn’t even think about a trilogy while making Batman Begins.
You think Feige had the entire infinity saga mapped out during phase 1? Of course not, he just looks at what fits together when they’re developing their scripts.
If anything, it’s the fault of the filmmakers that this trilogy doesn’t feel cohesive.
I like a lot of the technical filmmaking here, which still elevates it somewhat, but this is an awful script.
It’s an overstuffed Russian doll macguffin hunt that cannot give proper pay offs to the emotional arcs of the trilogy.
4.5/10
I was expecting this to be a dry and slow film having read the premise.
Well, I couldn’t be more wrong.
Somehow, Noah Baumbach made me deeply connect to the story, which is odd considering the subject matter doesn’t relate to me personally in any way.
Perhaps that’s because it has a lot to say about how the juridical system doesn’t help people through this shitty period in their lives, but rather brings out the worst in them.
8.5/10
A very decent horror film.
The first two acts are like a dark version of Logan, but with Professor X in the leading role.
It's well acted, shot (Mike Flanagan truly has a unique visual style) and chilling.
Rebecca Ferguson makes for a good cocaine addict.
However, the movie also drags quite a bit, and uses fan service in all the wrong ways (i.e. a lot of forced 'remember this?' moments).
6.5/10
Some people are going to dislike this simply because it doesn’t give you all the answers, or rather, it doesn’t spell the answers out for you.
But, knowing all the answers wouldn’t change what the film is really interested in (i.e. social mobility and bias in the American school system) , so I’m perfectly fine with the ambiguity in this case.
I think it hints just enough at what happened in order to leave you fulfilled.
The acting is also very solid, particularly from the lead guy.
However, the pacing could’ve been better, and the storyline with the girlfriend feels like a detractor.
7/10
It’s beyond stupid.
Thankfully, the movie knows that too.
The characters in this movie are played like cartoons of cartoons.
It’s not exactly operating in the area of subtlety.
6/10
Quite possibly the most flat out entertaining film of the year so far, only next to Booksmart.
I’m starting to think that Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese, the writers of this film, are one trick ponies.
They really struggle with keeping subsequent films in their franchises fresh.
Between this and Deadpool 2, I see a lot of what I call ‘Hangover 2’ writing, meaning you change as little as you can from the first movie without making it a straight up remake.
I was annoyed by the amount of jokes from the first film that were repeated in Deadpool 2, and once again, Zombieland: Double Tap is just way too similar to the first film.
It feels lazy, but it’s still entertaining.
5.5/10
This pilot proves that when you remove the memory loss, musical score and raw direction from the Bourne movies, you’re left with something that’s pretty cookie-cutter and boring. Right now, it feels like a show that only exists in order to cash in on the Bourne name.
Can Sinead O’Connor just die already?
This is like an Edgar Wright movie: it starts as one thing, and then it morphs into something completely different.
Very good (especially the performances and score), but it doesn’t always make a ton of sense.
7.5/10
I’ll be shocked if this doesn’t sweep at the Razzies next year.
Finally I have a proper alternative whenever I feel like watching The Room.
Everyone should watch it, and corporate Marvel/DC slaves should be forced to sit through it.
Imagine Jamie Foxx’ Electro (before he turned blue) from The Amazing Spider-Man 2, dial that performance up to eleven, and you’d be pretty close to what Travolta is doing here.
This movie is just the best.
As a kid (I was 6 when I saw this for the first time), I still remember telling my dad when we left the cinema back in 2002: “that looked a little bit like Monsters Inc!”. Rewatching it with adult eyes makes me realize that my younger self was onto something, because yes: time has not been kind to this film. Movies from the same year, like The Two Towers or Chamber of Secrets, still hold up pretty well visually, because they didn’t attempt to do anything they knew they couldn’t do at the time. Oh, there are scenes with big spiders and a huge snake in the second Harry Potter book? No problem, we’ll use animatronics and set most of it in darkly lit sets in order to hide the details.
George Lucas, however, was more intent on pushing the technology forward, instead of thinking about how his film would age. As a result, it looks like you’re watching a dated Pixar film. If only it also sounded like one. The acting is absolutely atrocious, as well as unintentionally funny, because the dialogue that’s given to the actors doesn’t sound natural. The narrative is extremely boring, with the romantic subplot being the low point in the entire series. The only real positives in the film that I can think of are Ewan McGregor’s performance and John Williams’ score, and I suppose some of the action looks okay. Other than that, this is really hard to get through.
2.5/10
Whenever people compare this film to episode 4, they tend to talk about the improved visual effects, direction, or Vader’s expanded role. And while all of that is definetely present, this film’s biggest achievements when compared to the original to me have always been the major upgrade in the acting and dialogue. Kershner delivered a movie that isn’t just insanely quotable, but the actors managed to sell every single line of it. No longer do we have to listen to whatever Lucas was telling Fisher to do (“I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board”), and instead we get some genuinely great chemistry between her and Harrison Ford. Mark Hamill no longer acts like a whiny teenager, which is a nice bonus. And also, the new additions are nothing short of awesome, those being Yoda, Boba Fett and Lando.
People usually refer to this instalment as ‘the dark one’, but at the same time, it’s also the most comedic out of the original 3. Our protagonist learns that the big baddie is his daddy, but at the same time, he makes a handstand while a little green muppet is standing on top of his foot. It sounds like a tonal mess, but it really works. To me, it only loses a few points for some of the really hokey stuff. I know you sort of have to buy it, because it is a silly space movie after all, but some of the designs have just become laughable. It almost doesn’t sound fair to say that to a 40 year old movie, but even some other films from that time period are still as effective today as they were back then (remember, The Shining also came out in 1980).
8.5/10
Breaching experiment: the movie.
This was such a much needed mirror to the Western (and particularly American) society.
There are still so many bits in this movie that are still every bit as funny, shocking and relevant today as they were in 2006 (e.g. the rhodeo champion, the college students, the dinner scene).
Having said that, a few minor scenes feel like exces, and they don’t really serve a point.
Like, what was the point of the scene with the feminists?
There’s no commentary in it, and I already know that the main character is a sexist and a homophobe.
But all in all, this is a great film.
8/10
Let me preface this review by stating that I haven't read the book.
Now, I don't think that that's very important, because it's the job of the director to translate the book in such a way that it works on the big screen, meaning automatically that is should translate in a way that works for people who haven't read the book.
Moreover, a movie should never slavishly copy the book.
In fact, some of the best adaptations have come from directors who only captured the tone and feel of the book (like The Shining).
So don't come at me with the typical "well actually, in the book ...." attitude, because I'm only reviewing the film ;)
Pros:
- The casting director did his/her job exceedingly well, because every cast member in this is good if not great.
- Visuals and cinematography/technical aspects (I very much appreciate the fact that this movie doesn't rely on jump scares).
- Just like with the first film, the scares in this are well thought out and creative, albeit a little silly at times.
Cons:
- Again, just like the first movie, the overabundance of humour kills any sense of mood or creepy atmosphere that I'm supposed to endure. If you're going to cut from a scene where James Ramsone and Bill Hader are having a funny argument, to a scene where someone gets brutally murdered 30 seconds later, it doesn't leave an impact. This director just doesn't shift gears correctly.
- Like two other important WB sequels from recent years (those being Batman V Superman and Fantastic Beasts 2), this is an incoherent movie. In fact, I would argue this movie is actually almost exactly the same as Fantastic Beasts 2 in terms of structure. There's a set-up, a first act, in which we get to meet all of the characters. So far, so good. Then there's a string of long scenes in which everyone is on their own journey. In itself that's not a problem, however, none of those scenes actually build on each other. You could re-arrange every scene in the second act, and it wouldn't change a damn thing. Even more so, you could cut out these 70-80 minutes, and you wouldn't loose anything. Why is that? Because none of it has a purpose, there is no point to it, there is no progression, no ... plot.
- The CGI. The monsters in this look really fake, and some very obvious de-aging techniques have been used. There's a scene in a pharmacy store in which Jack Dylan Grazer's face looks so weird, it almost looks like you're watching a 3D movie where the layers of the image are deliberately different.
- The ending is lame. It reminded me of The Conjuring movies, in which people use the power of yelling religious gibberish in Latin in order to win. This time, however, it's the power of yelling insults. . Also, some of the set-ups in this movie are really obvious, to the point where you just know how some things are going to end up (which they do, of course).
3.5/10
Hands down, one of the ugliest and headache inducing films I’ve ever seen.
The visuals and some of the action sequences (like the highway chase) still hold up to this day, but this is overall a highly self-indulgent sequel with a discombobulated plot and even more wooden acting than the first one. Also, it marks the point where the Wachowskis started to go completely overboard with their use of CGI. They made a huge mistake by focussing on the philosophy for as much as they did, it’s bound to be way too complex and abstract for a lot of people, and even if you can kinda follow it, it’s not nearly as deep and profound as it thinks it is. Using the word ‘ergo’ doesn’t change that.
4/10
This is the film George Lucas desperately needed to watch when he was making the prequels.
I guess the people behind this movie really liked the final act of the third Harry Potter film.
This film is really stylistic, twisted and fun in a dark way.
You have to puzzle together how everything happened.
I could’ve used a lot more character development though, because you don’t care about any of the people in it, and the lead is kind of an asshole.
Also, they do kinda cheat by suggesting that you shouldn’t try to alter the past, which is supposed to raise the stakes, but nothing in this film even suggests that that’s possible.
The whole film takes the ‘everything is pre-determined, you have no free will’ approach to time travel, so you can’t change the past, even if you wanted to.
6.5/10
