Shout by Jordy
VIP8Is it just me or is there some circlejerk going on at Disney where they keep using the same group of actors over and over again for their different brands? Just stop using Taika Waititi already.
The movie itself is pretty whatever.
It reminded me a lot of Onward; you could do a lot worse, but it probably won’t be remembered within the broader Pixar catalogue.
Not a lot of depth or subtext with this one, it’s a pretty straight forward adventure (which is also fine of course).
Some good animation (lots of visual ideas are being pulled from Star Wars), decent voice acting, fine characters, story’s alright.
It’s kinda inoffensive and doesn’t really warrant some of the extreme reactions it’s gotten.
The whole ‘woke’ label is baffling to me, it just seems like a smokescreen certain people use to cover up for their own homophobia, which only emphasizes how the word ‘woke’ carries little to no meaning nowadays.
Any regular person will be fine watching this, regardless of their political leaning.
Ffs, it’s mass entertainment after all.5/10
loading replies
@antiwoke If you think that two people of the same gender kissing in the background for 2 seconds is political or woke, it says more about you than it does about Disney.
Shout by Nox
Half way through. I'm loving it. I have special memories to Pinocchio. When I was a little kid my big brother heard me crying in bed cause I got afraid of death. Never before did he show me he cared for me and even though he was only 13 (I was 6) he came into my room and calmed me down by telling a story about Pinocchio. It's my earliest memory. And this just brings it all back. Now I get to watch this with my 8 year old and she's mesmerised. I don't care what anybody says, this is magic.
loading replies
@noxiuz Nearing 30 year old cynical arse here. Kids movies meant for kids don’t need to be shit or have lower standards, just look at the old Disney cartoons, Pixar, Dreamworks, Harry Potter, Spiderverse, Lego movie, or anything made by Zemeckis himself in the 80s. I’m glad your little one liked it, but we all liked crap when we were younger, and that can leave an impression on us (one that we often look back on and cringe at). Don’t call out other users for making a convincing case that the movie’s shit.
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).
loading replies
@medous Look, they’re banking on you as a viewer recognizing that character from the X-Men series, regardless of whether he’s technically a variant. Even though Marvel’s probably going with your route in order to not contradict the X-Men continuity, it’s pretty clear what their intentions are. You’re meant to think of him as that character, even though they can’t say that because it wouldn’t make sense. Hence, I found the way that it was handled extremely cheap.
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).
loading replies
@onivlis I don’t think that’s worse than the infamous face melting scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark
So Much Anticipation For The Batman And Tried Keeping My Expectations Low - Simply Said It Was A Good Movie But Not A Batman Movie - Loved The Dark And Gritty Feel But No Matter What Batman Is A Super Hero Even If He Is A Tragic One - Robert Pattinson Should Have Stuck To Twilight
All I Can Say Is That Christian Bale Is Still The Best Batman & Christopher Nolan Knew Had To Make A Dark And Yet True Super Hero
loading replies
@zdistrict People like you are the reason why we can’t have nice things
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
loading replies
@ant9090 Lmao, sure thing mate.
Normally, I like Charlie Kaufman, but this is him at his most pretentious.
Not that it’s all bad, I actually liked most of the first long scene in the car.
It’s the kind of scene that will make many casual viewers dismiss the film right away (due to its length), but I thought it set up both of our leads very well.
Then they arrive at the parents’ house, and my opinion on the film did a 180.
It does what every annoying art movie does (not saying all art movies are like that, I like a lot of them): everything starts to get weird for the sake of trying to be interesting, but without any artistic reasoning.
For example, the acting becomes a nonsensical mix of very grounded performances (our leads) on one side, and extremely heightened, cartoony perfomances on the other side (the parents).
Also, the cinematography is pedestrian at best, and I fail to see the reasoning behind the chosen aspect ratio (unlike films like The Lifghthouse or Mommy).
Just stick to writing, Charlie.4/10
loading replies
@the_argentinian Get off your high horse. First of all, I’d advise you to watch Mommy, a film that used this aspect ratio for a majority of its scenes in order to create an actual feeling of claustrophobia when needed (so not for the entire movie, as that wouldn’t make sense, which is also the case here), and did it way more succesfully, I might add. Second, yes, I agree that some people pull out the ‘pretentious’ card too quickly, that doesn’t mean that such a thing doesn’t exist. Believe it or not, but some people do actually get what the film is trying to convey, they just don’t like how it’s being done. That doesn’t make them stupid. To me, the definition of stupid comes closer to people who write smug, pseudo intellectual comments in poor English.
Shout by Jordy
VIP8It’s hard to rate, because there are a lot of entertaining scenes in it, but the movie at its core doesn’t really work.
I can’t shed this feeling that Edgar Wright had a visual cue in his head of a girl experiencing visions of the 1960’s first, and tried to build a movie around that second.
The characters, drama, camerawork, music selection and social commentary are all very good, but the whole set up is kinda nonsense once you know the answers to the mystery.
I kept waiting for the twist that’d explain why our protagonist has these accurate visions of things that happened 50 years earlier , but it’s never answered, despite it being the crux of the whole film.
Also, showing CGI ghosts in a horror movie using well lit close ups is never the best idea, it kinda killed a lot of the horror and suspense.
I kinda liked that I thought that I was ahead of the film at one point, only to find out that it was a big misdirect to make you think you were ahead.5.5/10
loading replies
@xaliber I get why they’re in there, and what they do for the story. I’d let it pass if it was just that, a vision or an imagined thing. But it’s not, because as we find out, what she’s seeing is actually all true, so it’s not just a normal vision. At that point I feel like the film has to explain itself, especially given that it becomes such a major plot point in the third act.
Where was this group of "diverse" heroes when Thanos attacked in Infinity War and Endgame? One of the many plot holes that this film has, added to the boring general plot. Without a doubt a waste of time, and this confirms that Marvel is no longer in its best days.
loading replies
@nicknightingale @crxssed I wouldn’t expect any sign of intelligence guys, given how his opinion is phrased
This is bound to be divisive, and I can see it getting a cult following in the future.
It plays out a lot like an Edgar Wright movie, starting as one movie and slowly morphing into another.
I personally liked it a lot, I found it very inspired and creative from a story perspective.
It has a great character at the center, some really unpredictable twists, it delivers the scares and gore you want, terrific visuals (Wan’s trademark camerawork is here) and good music (there is a subtle song reference that’s actually kinda brilliant).
It’s not perfect though: the acting can sometimes be a little wonky, there’s too much unneeded exposition, and the tone can occasionally get a little campy, which doesn’t always work.
Still, you have to respect James Wan for bringing creative and fresh ideas into a genre that has continued to give us the same shit over and over again.6/10
loading replies
@erebos Not entirely, that's 1 of the 3/4 genres that you can find in this film. Do those horror movies end with Matrix-esque fight sequences? That's where the creativity comes from. It takes tropes from different genres, puts them in a blender, and makes something fresh out of it.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Well, I'll never listen to That's Life by Frank Sinatra in the same way again, that's for sure.
Before I start, there are two groups of people who need to be addressed:
- Regarding the people who are saying that it's too violent, and a movie based on comics shouldn't be like that: please, go back to watching Dora: The Explorer.
- Regarding the people who are calling it a Taxi Driver or King of Comedy rip-off: Is Mr. Robot a Fight Club rip-off? You have to see the difference between ripping something off and taking inspiration + adding your own ideas to it. Also, Taxi Driver is a vigilante story, something which this isn't.So, most of the praise you heard about this movie I can absolutely get behind. The cinematography and score are without a doubt Oscar worthy. Joaquin Phoenix is front and center, and he absolutely shines. It is a full on character study, and the movie shows everything from the Joker's point of view. It keeps the movie focussed, but it has to be said that there are no other interesting characters to get invested into, something that other character studies don't forget. The pacing is also very well done. It doesn't feel like a slow movie, and the final 20 minutes are something special. To me, however, the first 90 minutes are a lot more interesting. I love the fact that we get to see an in-depth exploration of the causes of social exclusion and what leads to Arthur's downward spiral. Phillips very wisely points to a variety of causes at very different levels of society (elites, government, punks), while not forgetting that some blame also falls into the hands of Arthur himself (e.g. his megalomania). This is a very strong and nuanced message.
And then there's the film's other message. When it comes to a film like this (a protagonist with a downwards spiral), the movie often starts with making you feel sympathetic towards the character. The Wolf of Wallstreet does that. Breaking Bad does that. And Joker also does that. But then there's a point where the character crosses the line, a moment which you can almost pinpoint in this movie, namely the scene where he kills his mom . From that point on, a movie should clearly condemn what he's doing in order to not give out an immoral or wrong message. In The Wolf of Wallstreet, Di Caprio starts to lose everything. In Breaking Bad, Walter White starts to lose everything. Phillips, however, goes out of his way of condemning what his character does. Instead, he plays swelling and upbeat music during the film's darkest moments. Moreover, Joker gets a happy ending , and no other characters have a sincere conversation about the atrocities of what he's doing. In other words, the movie gives off the impression of still being on his side, thereby presenting violence as the answer to this man's problems, and I can totally agree with some of the critics who have a moral problem with that. I understand that they wanted to stay with Arthur's perspective through the end, but this comes at the cost of one of the biggest mistakes a film like this can make. At the same time, one major flaw doesn't make a film bad. I mean, Gone With The Wind is immoral in the sense that it is racist, but is it a bad film? Absolutely not.
7.5/10
loading replies
@danzoc I can see where you’re coming from, but even the first season adds its own ideas to the familiar story beats (like all the stuff with Tyrell and his wife, for example. Or making the imaginary character related to the protagonist), so I’d call it heavy inspiration. A rip-off, to me, is something like The Secret Life of Pets, which is a blatant copy of Toy Story.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Nothing 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
loading replies
@misnomer Speaking as someone from a younger generation, I can tell you that my favourite movies have quite a bit of plot in them, but I think that's besides the point that you're trying to make. Yes, the latest MI movies have been lighter on plot, but that's fine, simply because McQuarrie and Bird understand what to give the audience in order to keep them interested (set pieces that are extremely well done, character dynamics & fun). Just look at one of the other best action movies of recent years, Mad Max: Fury Road. That one also has a minimized plot, but it's filled with set pieces, interesting characters and socio-political commentary. Just because an action film has more plot in it, that doesn't automatically make it better. In fact, I'd argue that that's where the first one falters, simply because its storytelling is too convoluted, which is a result of them shooting without a finished script. It might be closer to the original show that way (which I, in all fairness, haven't seen), but who's to say that a film cannot improve on its source material? I mean, do I have to bring up The Shining, or more recently, Ready Player One?
I see the Jurassic world added some token black people lol
loading replies
@mediacenterkodi I hate to break it to your lizard brain, but this franchise already had ‘token’ black people from the get-go. Ever heard of this actor called Samuel L. Jackson? Or Omar Sy, who’s featured in the first Jurassic World?
Trash movie about trash people with a trash ending.
loading replies
@adansantos Many great movies are about trashy people.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Denis 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
loading replies
@lainfan I know, but the David Lynch adaptation was so abysmal that it doesn’t really count in my book. And I doubt many people saw that tv adaptation in the 2000’s, so I wouldn’t really call it an ‘established IP’ in a cinematic sense. Maybe that’s hypocritical from my side, but I’d only hold that against the movie if it this was an unnecessary remake that doesn’t bring anything new to the table (besides maybe updating the effects), but that’s clearly not the case here.
And yeah, Paul’s a bit of a passive character in the first act, but that’s often how the heroes journey is written. Look at characters like Frodo, Luke, Harry Potter; they all start as passive (or even reluctant) heroes who are forced to step up to the plate once their mentors get killed.
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.
loading replies
@unambi it’s a joke, chill. I know that, I’m only referring to those who think Covid-19 was created in a lab. I rephrased it a little in the review ;)
Pretty solid.
Apparently a lot of people aren’t ready to be challenged by content matter like this, but I think that’s only a matter of time. We also got there eventually when it came to empathizing with gangsters.loading replies
@jaysyle Both of those things are, first and foremost, meant to shock once you see them. Then, both films make an effort to critique what you’re seeing. That’s the comparison.
You could make a point that it’s unethical to use kids, that’s fair, I don’t entirely disagree. I wouldn’t let my kids do it. However, in this case, if the child actors and their parents were fine with it, who am I to say that they can’t do it? The intent of the director makes it socially acceptable. Those scenes are needed, they need to be shocking in order to get the point across. They’re not in there for nasty reasons.
Normally, I like Charlie Kaufman, but this is him at his most pretentious.
Not that it’s all bad, I actually liked most of the first long scene in the car.
It’s the kind of scene that will make many casual viewers dismiss the film right away (due to its length), but I thought it set up both of our leads very well.
Then they arrive at the parents’ house, and my opinion on the film did a 180.
It does what every annoying art movie does (not saying all art movies are like that, I like a lot of them): everything starts to get weird for the sake of trying to be interesting, but without any artistic reasoning.
For example, the acting becomes a nonsensical mix of very grounded performances (our leads) on one side, and extremely heightened, cartoony perfomances on the other side (the parents).
Also, the cinematography is pedestrian at best, and I fail to see the reasoning behind the chosen aspect ratio (unlike films like The Lifghthouse or Mommy).
Just stick to writing, Charlie.4/10
loading replies
@the_argentinian I hope you realize that English isn’t my first language either? That’s something a smart person would’ve checked on my profile before writing such an embarrassing comment. Setting that aside, what I’m saying is: if you want to be smug, that’s fine, but at least make sure you articulate yourself eloquently. Don’t come with a ‘stick to teen comedies on Netflix’ attitude when you can’t even argue your own points thoroughly, or even properly for that matter. Until then, this conversation is done.
Shout by Jordy
VIP8Good 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
loading replies
@catsy Nonsense. This is an example of great creature design. You can argue that the earthquake scene looks off, but overall, this is a CGI standard that should be looked up to.
Also, being diverse doesn’t make a movie better, just like how a lack of it doesn’t make it worse.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Damn, it must really suck to have been snapped while being on a plane.
Pros:
- First and foremost, props to its ambition.
- There are major goosebumps, as well as emotional, moments.
- The acting is top notch. And especially the people who need to be top notch, are really top notch.
- The action has fantastic ideas at play.
- The amount of cameos in this film is unbelievable. Spoiler: Loved the fact that Jarvis from Agent Carter got a cameo!
- It celebrates the MCU in a good, and sometimes also very clever, way.
- The right characters are highlighted.
- A good score, and finally some more musical continuity.
- The villain is still great.
- It wraps up in a very satisfying way. Characters whose story ends here, get a great wrap up.
Cons:
- The first hour is a little hard to get through. It's very dialogue heavy, which in itself isn't a problem, but the Russos aren't good at directing long sections with just dialogue, while keeping you interested. And when that's a problem, you also start to notice the slow pacing, as well as flavourless direction of those scenes.
- The time jump feels like a lazy way to force inorganic changes into the story (e.g. The Hulk & Banner issue, a big plot point in the previous film, has been solved off screen; or the Civil War conflict that has been sort of resolved now, neither one of those feel earned. )
- The choreography and editing of the action aren't good. Moreover, the action that involves a lot of CGI feels weightless.
- Not a fan of the direction they took with Thor. They made him a tragic, but badass hero in the last film. I get that he's sad in this film, but did they really need to turn him into a joke again, like Thor: Ragnarok so annoyingly did?
- The time travel mechanics in this film don’t make enough sense. As a result, the continuity of the MCU is fucked now, because of the huge plotholes in this film. If half of the population is now 5 years older, do we just have to assume that the entirety of Peter's school got snapped? Do we have to assume that all the important Wakandans that play a future role in Black Panther sequels got snapped? What about any of the tv shows that are loosely (although not as loose as once before) connected? Also, how come we can't bring back anyone who died? If a past Gamora, Nebula and Thanos can come to the future, then why can't we bring back Natascha, Gamora, Pietro, Vision, etcetera? Also, going forward, anything that goes wrong can now be fixed with time travel (as long as they don't place restrictions on the Pym particles). It's issues like these that make a lot of time travel movies fall apart, and Endgame is no different.
6/10
loading replies
@gprivi So why not have Pym make some more in the present? Or have Cap steal some more in the past?
Review by Jordy
VIP8Damn, it must really suck to have been snapped while being on a plane.
Pros:
- First and foremost, props to its ambition.
- There are major goosebumps, as well as emotional, moments.
- The acting is top notch. And especially the people who need to be top notch, are really top notch.
- The action has fantastic ideas at play.
- The amount of cameos in this film is unbelievable. Spoiler: Loved the fact that Jarvis from Agent Carter got a cameo!
- It celebrates the MCU in a good, and sometimes also very clever, way.
- The right characters are highlighted.
- A good score, and finally some more musical continuity.
- The villain is still great.
- It wraps up in a very satisfying way. Characters whose story ends here, get a great wrap up.
Cons:
- The first hour is a little hard to get through. It's very dialogue heavy, which in itself isn't a problem, but the Russos aren't good at directing long sections with just dialogue, while keeping you interested. And when that's a problem, you also start to notice the slow pacing, as well as flavourless direction of those scenes.
- The time jump feels like a lazy way to force inorganic changes into the story (e.g. The Hulk & Banner issue, a big plot point in the previous film, has been solved off screen; or the Civil War conflict that has been sort of resolved now, neither one of those feel earned. )
- The choreography and editing of the action aren't good. Moreover, the action that involves a lot of CGI feels weightless.
- Not a fan of the direction they took with Thor. They made him a tragic, but badass hero in the last film. I get that he's sad in this film, but did they really need to turn him into a joke again, like Thor: Ragnarok so annoyingly did?
- The time travel mechanics in this film don’t make enough sense. As a result, the continuity of the MCU is fucked now, because of the huge plotholes in this film. If half of the population is now 5 years older, do we just have to assume that the entirety of Peter's school got snapped? Do we have to assume that all the important Wakandans that play a future role in Black Panther sequels got snapped? What about any of the tv shows that are loosely (although not as loose as once before) connected? Also, how come we can't bring back anyone who died? If a past Gamora, Nebula and Thanos can come to the future, then why can't we bring back Natascha, Gamora, Pietro, Vision, etcetera? Also, going forward, anything that goes wrong can now be fixed with time travel (as long as they don't place restrictions on the Pym particles). It's issues like these that make a lot of time travel movies fall apart, and Endgame is no different.
6/10
loading replies
@rexton nitpicky? Seven years ago we all took issue with the supposed ‘plot hole’ of a broke billionaire returning to Gotham from a pit in the Middle East. Now granted, The Dark Knight Rises has a more serious tone, meaning that a Marvel film gets away with more nonsensical or unexplained stuff by nature. But the fact of the matter is: this plot and its mechanics fall apart as soon as you start to put any thought into it. That’s never a good thing, and certainly not a nitpick.
Review by cutecruel
Knives Out disappointed me, it’s cliched and not as clever as those it pays homage to. 2019 is really the wave of “woke” American movies that think they're way more clever than they actually are.
Every character is an exaggerated stereotype of some sort, shallow caricatures. The good senior millionaire – see he isn’t bad like the rest of his family! Except, who do you think raised this family? The well-intentioned “black” cop and dumb “white” detective. The members of the family are obviously meant to be parodies of stereotypes, but they’re either too on the nose or too underdeveloped, and just end up becoming the stereotypes they’re parodying.
But the impossibly kind messiah born to an illegal immigrant bothered me the most - Marta Cabrera has exactly two expressions throughout the whole movie, such an anti-feminist character, no agency whatsoever. She is the modern Mother Teresa – the best nurse, has to always tell the truth, and needs to save the woman blaming her for murder. It’s her story but she is so passive, and solves nothing. Her only defining character traits are that she’s an immigrant and has a kind heart. By the time Marta is referred to as good for the 20th time, they’ve ensured she feels less like a person and more like a symbol for The Perfect Immigrant.I wish more was done with the big name actors. Daniel Craig (along with Ana de Armas) got the most screentime but his performance of attempted humor didn’t translate, and his fake Southern accent was really irritating. I get that it was exaggerated, but his acting sucked. A bad casting choice, he just doesn’t fit the character.
I felt like the story was building to something more than it actually was the entire time. The mystery felt like a backdrop for Rian Johnson to vent off his own political frustrations. You can tell he is way too online. Expect to hear things like, “How's your SJW degree coming?”, “Alt right troll”, or “Liberal snowflake”. This clunky use of buzzwords doesn't add anything to the characters or the story. These are manufactured quirks that try to disguise underdeveloped characters as developed. They don't even qualify as satire, because satire needs actual insight and depth to it, some sort of critique. The movie doesn't make any real points about class or privilege. Rian Johnson needs to learn few things about subtlety while bringing his ideologies in movie. And whoever has to clean his house should be given all his wealth I guess.
Overall, it's an 'immigrants vs. the rich people' movie and you can guess where it goes from the beginning because well, it's Hollywood.
loading replies
@curtwagner1984 uhm yes it is, she very much is meant to be a symbol for immigrants. Have you not paid attention to how the movie ends, with her standing on the balcony looking down at the rich assholes? Pretty clear visual communication going on there. Did you notice how everyone from the family messes up the country she’s from? They don’t spell it out for you, but the subtext is extremely obvious with this film.
This film is absolutely gorgeous but ultimately thats not enough. The story itself is fine but it's nowhere near the calibre of story telling I've come to expect from Pixar. Should have just released it as a Disney film and let Pixar work on something else.
loading replies
@csbarker So, if they’d slap a Disney logo in front of it and you’d rate it higher? What’s your logic here?
The perfect zom-com! It starts off dead (some people even walked out and I thought perhaps the critics' raves were ravings) but then it comes alive and bites you in the ass. And once it sinks its teeth in you, you're hooked!
Stop reading here if you plan on seeing the film! You should go in as blind as possible!
Synopsis: The first half hour is a low budget zombie film, shot real-time and in one take. This is NOT the comedy, no matter how much intellectually Parisians chortled at what they were convinced were the appropriate places. No, the comedy takes place in the faux 'making-of' that follows, and I haven't laughed so hard in the cinema in a long time. Stick around for the credits, which is the real making-of the short that begins the film.
Creative and outside the box, One Cut of the Dead is not the movie you expect, but it is the zom-com you deserve.
loading replies
@saint-pauly Idk, this idea of the director character using ‘real’ zombies in order to draw better performances out of the actors got a good laugh out of me
Shout by Jordy
VIP8Are 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
loading replies
@jim222001 I think he’s trolling. And disliking The Batman doesn’t automatically make you a Snyderhead.
Review by Jordy
VIP8Nothing 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
loading replies
@nitemice I agree, which makes it even crazier that WB greenlit this script
Once you embrace the cynicism and ignore your neverending anger about Hollywood's zombie-like state, which is dead, but not quite, which nowadays cannot produce anything but unworthy remakes of classic films, the film is quite enjoyable. If you're a fan of the series of course.
But, I don't understand what did the commentators expect; not a single sequel of 70s/80s/90s classic is comparable to an original, they as a standalone pieces can't be even considered good, that's why you have to evaluate things in context, and the context is that this film, and many others like it, were not made for art's sake, for glory of the creation, were not made out of ingeniousness of an author, out of a unique idea - they were made rutinely, industrially, on a Ford's assembly line, without a pretence of anything else but for (more or less mindless) entertainment that makes your minutes and hours go by, and most importantly, because big heads concluded this model of filmmaking is the most profitable.
You know it, filmmakers know it.Still, I feel that there's enough good philosophical and social ideas displayed, (some obvious, but some hidden, like the dialectics, evolution of Smith and Morpheus, evolved and more complex class struggle when it comes to humans and robots, capitalist incorporation of its critique, like the reality becoming just another simulation, and most importantly, true belief in positive social change), and that Lana Wachowski has more, but is restrained by powers that be for exactly described reasons.
Visually I wasn't impressed, also I was expecting a bit more from the "sci" part of sci-fi, first part of the film is too slow, and the second part is too fast, but it's hardly embarrassing like some make it
Face it people, Hollywood is finito. Nowadays, there is hardly a new film truly worth watching that isn't an art film. Your self-righteous wrath won't get you anywhere, you should've learned this by now (I did with the X-Files remake), and it certainly won't make you a better person if you bitch about it more than the next guy. If you look for deeper meanings of this world, then leave entertainment media, and go read some books (preferably not belletristica or poetry, those are for suckers).
loading replies
@an-unearthly-child I can hold out hope for as long as I get the occasional No Time To Die, Toy Story 4, Mission Impossible: Fallout, Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse or Mad Max: Fury Road. Like what are we supposed to do? Should we just lower our standard and give all the other mediocrity the industry shits out a pass, as you’re implying? I think there’s great value in unpretentious entertainment when it’s handled well, so it’s worth getting upset about when it’s poorly done. It’s not even like I’m looking for substance or subtext in films like this (though it can certainly be a bonus, just look at the original Matrix), a bunch of interesting characters and well helmed action would honestly be enough. In fact, that used to be the blueprint for these in the 80s and 90s. There used to be an awareness that relying on fan pandering, cameos, artificial spectacle, (meta) references and set up the next 5 movies aren’t enough to make an entertaining film. So forgive me for my own rant (as well as what others have written), but I think it’s completely justified.
So right off the bat... As a movie, this is pretty shit. Maybe a 6.5/10 overall if you had to rate it honestly.
It's mildly funny, predictable, overacted, arrogantly and self-righteously American.
But that's not what the sum of the parts is.... That is exactly what it is trying to be.
What you have here is a searing indictment of modern humanity. Self-obsessed, intellectually inept, molly-coddled Americans who - when faced with the end of the world - decide to turn it into a political battleground, attempt to milk it for profit, hand it over to sociopathic billionaire industrialists as the government officials are too incapable to handle the situation, who ultimately pay the price for their decisions.
It's a sadly accurate depiction of where the West stands at the moment. Crippled by 40 years of mind-numbing entertainment that has depleted our intelligence, our ability for critical thought and common sense.
I wouldn't rewatch this if you paid me. And it is 30 minutes too long. But it is the most realistic holding up of a mirror to society as I have seen in a decade.
The most reasoned and insightful view of how messed up we are as nations today is coming from satirical comedy. Just as it always has.
7.5/10
loading replies
@porteruk Yes, I’m sure that people had a lot more common sense before 1970. You know, that period where we got pretty close to destroying ourselves as a species few times. That period where people were more openly bigoted and racist. That period where it was okay to colonize and exploit the resources of other countries. Those good ol’ days were just full of intelligence and critical thinking.
To see how to cover up lazy writing with star-studded cast, watch this movie.
loading replies
@made0fstyrofoam I wouldn’t have a clue of how to write a tight, coherent version of this story. I think it’s more a case of the most commercial idea for a film winning over a natural progression of the story.
What the fuck is wrong with that movie?! I didn't like it at all, I was so interested to watch it because I wanted to know a lot about Diana's life and death. However, in that movie they only focused on a couple of days in her life, which I would have enjoyed, but it was so unreal for me and so disappointed. We already know about how the royal family treats people inside from the Opera talk with Harry and Megan.
I would have loved the movie more if it has the whole story until her death and the conspiracy around it. Christine Stewart acting was bad and so crazy.
loading replies
@ahmedhamdy90 Well, I’m willing to guarantee that both Kirsten Stewart and Johnny Greenwood (the composer) will at least get nominated for the next Oscars, and I’d say they have a pretty good shot at winning.
