A very important film, and without a doubt one that has had an influence on many directors.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is one of Christopher Nolan’s favourite films, as all of his famous tricks are present here, such as non-linear storytelling, cross-cutting between storylines and unreliable narrators.
As a film, Rashomon does a lot of things right.
The plot, acting, music, editing, cinematography and pacing are all terrific.
The problem lies in the fact that the film seems to be only interested in the idea its exploring (again, much like a Nolan film) and therefore, only tries to engage you on a story level.
The characters, on the other hand, are very thinly drawn.
Extending the film by 10 minutes in order to flesh out the characters would’ve really helped with making the film more engaging on an emotional level.
Also, the way they told the perspective of the husband doesn’t work for me, as it breaks from the serious and dark tone of the film with spiritual nonsense.
However, that might just be me looking at it from a Western perspective.
As Rashomon would say, who’s to say that my perspective is the right one?
7.5/10
This is the show that Zack Snyder wishes he could make.
It deconstructs superheroes in a smart way, while not forgetting about important things like character development, story coherence or pacing.
In fact, this is a show that genuinly has a lot of profound things to say about the military industrial complex, religion, power abuse, and more.
It doesn’t just use fetishized costumes and pretentious dialogue to cover up for its own lack of substance.
Moreover, this show is darkly funny, original and twisted.
They could still improve the show by fleshing out some of the characters in Karl Urban’s crew, because I didn’t think all of them were interesting.
Also, the action scenes are straight up bad, but that’s in no way a dealbreaker, because the show isn’t all that interested in them.
8/10
It’s very solid, undeniably one of the most well shot war films ever made.
However, it lacks a bit of emotional resonance.
Most of these characters (especially the ones in the air and at the pier) aren’t that interesting, so it’s not a movie that fully engages you as a viewer. I don’t necessarily need a schmaltzy backstory, but they could’ve given Fionn Whitehead more of a personality at the very least.
Also, I thought the scenes in the air, while they sound incredible, got a bit stale after while.
It’s just Jack Lowden and Tom Hardy shooting at a bunch of planes, and there’s not much more to it.
Still, this movie deserves a lot of respect for its presentation, story structure, directing, acting, editing, sound design, score, etc.
7.5/10
A movie that never justifies its existence.
I have a lot of respect for what John Favreau did with The Jungle Book.
He managed to do something that every remake should aim for, but usually fails to do: improve upon its original.
This, however, is the exact same movie.
There was zero effort put into improving things, or even do anything different, for that matter.
And to some degree, I get it: the original is almost sacred to some people, and they’ll act autistically if you change too much.
There’s also an upside to that, which some critics don’t pick up on: if a story works in 1994, it still works in 2019.
But you could at the very least try some different shot compositions, or different music cues, or anything to not make this movie completely creatively hollow.
Yes, it looks just like a Discovery documentary.
At the same time, the realism strips the expressiveness of the animals away, so those things cancel each other out.
There’s just no reason to watch this over the original.
5.5/10
So, I assume Vincent meets Thanos in the sequel, right?
I want one of those umbrellas.
Yes, it’s utter trash in just about every regard.
But, you can have so much fun with it, especially with the right amount of friends and alcohol.
It’s also the ultimate time capsule of the early 2000s.
A brilliant concept that’s wasted by very weak acting, especially from Himesh Patel and Ed Sheeran. Moreover, it thinks it’s a lot funnier than it really is, doesn’t take the premise to its fullest extent, and has characters that are extremely dickish for no reason whatsoever.
4.5/10
Great, but this Lila character wasn't a good idea, even with her pardoned tits.
I’m kinda baffled that the critical response to this has been so much better than Bohemian Rhapsody.
Yes, its presentation is more honest and creative than that film, which alone makes Rocketman better.
But other than that, it makes the exact same mistakes by being extremely cliched and having mostly uninteresting characters.
5.5/10
This is, without a doubt, one of the hokiest shows of all time.
And yet, it can be stupidly fun at times.
It's one of the best guilty pleasures out there, that's for sure.
It’s Superbad mixed with some of that Community type of humour and creativity.
Really well done, I’d recommend this to just about anyone, even if you’re not close to its target audience.
Go and see it!
8.5/10
Conceptually interesting, but we’ve seen it done better in other movies and even tv shows at this point.
Yes, I certainly can’t deny that the acting and visuals are brilliant.
Also, the action scenes and worldbuilding are magnificent.
Can you tell it was made in the early 2000’s? Absolutely, the cyberpunk look is ever so present in a lot of scenes, but that’s not bothersome. In fact, I think it’s awesome.
Furthermore, this story goes in directions you don’t expect.
It takes a while for the real adventure part to kick in, and only then you’ll realize that the first act was just a lot of character development.
This film fails on a point where Spielberg hardly ever failed: tone.
As you probably know, this film was originally intended to be directed by Stanley Kubrick.
His dark touch is felt, and it really doesn’t mix with Spielberg’s whimsical style at all.
For example, do PG-13 Ted and an Einstein cartoon played by Robin Williams feel as if they belong in the same movie as where a mother leaves her own kid behind in the forest, and cries her eyes out for doing that?
Unfortunately, they don’t, which results in bizarre tonal shifts throughout the film.
Moreover, I found the choice to have the AI act like our stereotypical imagination of robots a mistake, as it makes it harder to connect to the characters, or understand certain choices of human characters in the first act.
Finally, certain scenes were, in the larger scope of the story, unnecessary (e.g. Brendan Gleeson’s circus show). Removing those scenes would’ve sped up the pacing and shortened the runtime, something this film needed.
5/10
I don’t get the appeal of these.
Yeah, the stuntwork’s great, but I see no redeeming qualities besides that. The acting sucks, the dialogue’s corny, the story is schlock that’s presented way too seriously, the characters are uninteresting, there’s little to no tension because the main character is an invincible cartoon, the music’s unmemorable and generic, and most of the film is just plain damn boring.
All the good stuff that this has to offer is also offered by franchises like Mission Impossible and Fast and Furious, and more on top of that.
You’re not getting the clever intrigue or fun gimmicks of the MI franchise here, nor the tongue in cheek comedy or creative, over the top insanity of the F&F franchise.
This is so boring by comparison to me.
4/10
Man, so much potential.
Dare I say it, based on the cast and crew alone: best movie of the year potential.
And there's definitely a lot of good in it.
This movie is one of the few examples that teaches us how to get action filmmaking right.
The cinematography, the editing, the locations and their atmosphere, the action scenes, the tension and the soundtrack are all great.
On the other hand, it's simply not that special, because it follows exactly the formula you'd expected from a film like this.
And that's a shame, because it wasn't necessary.
The interesting stuff is in there, but it never gets the attention that it should:
- there's an interesting social angle (military soldiers breaking bad because they didn't feel they got the respect they deserved), but they don't play it up enough.
- there's a fantastic cast, and they all do a good job, but they're not given the dialogue or character development to make something special out of it.
In fact, only two people in the film feel like actual human beings (Affleck and Isaac), but they don't get nearly enough development to make them feel like fully fleshed out characters.
Also, the third act drags.
And finally, I don't quite know if I liked the ending. A part of me found that they handled out of character, another part of me liked the fact that they did something different.
5.5/10
This really is 2 different movies squashed together.
One part is a satire of the pretentiousness within the art world, and it is really great.
The other part is a horror film about moving paintings, and it is generic and boring.
It only gets interesting when the moving paintings are used to delve into Jake Gyllenhaal’s character.
The other characters are just not that interesting.
5/10
Intouchables meets Driving Ms. Daisy.
Not bad, but not original or creative enough to be truly great.
Glass, is pretty ass.
Look, M. Night knows what to do with the camera, and the music's not half bad.
And to his credit, the dialogue isn't nowhere near as painful as it was in Split.
But that's about it.
We have one actor who's overdoing it to the extent where it becomes laughable, one actor who's phoning it in, and one actor who's actually pretty good, but stays silent for about 75% of the film.
We have a short first act that's okay, but nothing special.
We have a second act in which Sarah Paulson tries to convince everyone that superpowers aren't real.
Now why should that be interesting? We've seen Unbreakable and Split, so that's not a relevant discussion whatsoever.
Therefore, I was thinking: maybe it's more about her persuading the characters then?
Nope, the movie doesn't really do anything with it, and pretty much drops this plot point by the time that the third act starts.
And then there's the goddamn third act, where this movie just completely drops the ball.
First, we have Samuel L. Jackson pointing out how everything unfolds like a comic book.
Storytelling like this has been done to death, and especially in this movie, it doesn't feel authentic, or even fresh, anymore.
It feels like a means for Shyamalan to cover up for his own, as Deadpool would say, lazy writing.
Second, there's the big finale with the James McAvoy and Bruce Willis characters.
Think about the most unsatisfying ending you can imagine for these two characters, and you're probably pretty close to what actually happens.
Finally, as for the twists, there are a few. Most of them are not earned and feel lazy. However, there's one that worked for the story of the trilogy and brought it all together in a sense (SPOILER: talking about the twist that James McAvoy's dad was on the same train as Bruce Willis ).
3/10
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
It’s not immediately clear what it’s building towards.
But if you stick with it, you’ll find yourself watching one of the best films of the year.
Visually, it's not bad. And the action's okay.
It just completely falls apart when it comes to character depth, acting (besides Hugo Weaving, everyone sucks), editing (very strange editing choices, as well as a lot of noticeable ADR replacements) and making me even remotely care about the story in general.
Wasted potential.
4/10
Cliche, after cliche, after cliche.
I loved it, until Chris Hemsworth showed up at the hotel and started acting dopey.
Tom Hardy, all by himself, almost makes this a good movie.
And, it's hilarious at times (which I believe was intentional, I think this movie is self-aware), way funnier than say Ant-Man and the Wasp.
There was just something about the banter between Eddie and Venom that worked extremely well.
But: the script is awful, the dialogue sucks, the production values are terrible, and anyone that isn't Tom Hardy comes from a much blander film.
So I cannot really recommend it, even though I kinda want to.
Dumb and nonsensical, which would be fine if it wouldn’t take itself seriously, but it totally does.
Also, you won’t care about any of the characters, despite the fact that Jennifer Garner is clearly trying.
The final few episodes are terrific, but they also show that the writers just didn’t know what to do with Brody’s family after season 1. Morena Baccarin doesn’t get anything to do, there’s no emotional pay off to the storyline with the daughter, it’s just very poorly handled. Also, there’s one nonsensical storyline in the first half of the season (you’ll know it when you’ll see it), and in general, this season is far less focussed than the second season, and particularly the first season. Nevertheless, it still delivers the thrills, and its still well made, so I do recommend it.
How hard can it be to tag Hawkeye when Jon Hamm works for the Avengers?
I could’ve sworn the building where Ed Helms and Jon Hamm meet up in this film is the same location used for the Avengers compound.
The third act is quite all right, but the two preceding it are rocky.
Also, it’s too plot driven, which results in a lack of character development, and by extension, a lack of engagement with the movie as a whole.
I really wonder why they decided to draw so much attention to the plot, especially when the plot is so flat and paint by numbers.
4.5/10
This is perfectly adequate.
Fine acting (not really Emilia Clarke’s best performance), fine characters (the droid’s annoying as shit though), fine story (if a little predictable in the third act), fine music, fine comedy and dialogue, it serves perfectly fine as a set up for Han’s character in A New Hope, it’s all fine.
The visuals are a bit … much, it almost looks like black and white photography at times, but there are also times where it looks fantastic.
Still, I don’t get why this easy going and light Star Wars film is presented as if its Lord of the Rings.
The set pieces are very well executed, I love the train heist and Kessel Run in particular, which in the end makes it a mild recommendation.
5.5/10
