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
Much more geniune and resonant than Spielberg’s version, this film while not without flaws still soars where it needs to. All the cast kill it, but God, Danielle Brooks is a star. Charismatic, heartbreaking, endlessly entertaining. She steals every scene, and this better net her at least nominations and a ton more roles. She’s been killing it since she made Orange is the New Black watchable. Barrino, Henson, Domingo, they all shine too. The choreography is so lively and earnest, and the colors all pop, so it’s as much a treat for the eyes as the ears. The songs hit where they need to and when everything works in tune, it really pulls the heartstrings.
Where it falters is the relationship between Celie and Shug. Certainly an improvement over the original, it still feels a bit overly cautious in places. Still afraid to show overt sexuality, and oddly afraid to show any edges. It sands out the relationship, removing the conflict and break up fight that made Celie, and I’m Here, even more powerful. It removes a layer of depth and specificity to the show stealing number, and it’s a shame.
That aside, it’s still a powerful, rousing, and emotional film worth the watch. It pulled a good amount of tears from me, and stirred the soul.
Now, I’m not terribly familiar with this musical (I’ve only seen the stage show once, with Cynthia Erivo). But to put it simply, just like its stage counterpart, The Color Purple left me beautifully devastated.
There were, of course, MANY cuts and changes in the transition to film. But not only is this a good thing, it is an ESSENTIAL thing. The two forms are so vastly different that a direct port would work against itself. (I only wish the events directly preceding “I’m Here” hadn’t been altered quite so much.) But what remains is the powerful story of a woman named Celie, told across 38 years (the years being show on screen were a helpful touch), and the people that came in and out of her life. There’s a heavy layer of communication with God, but it’s not necessarily religious, if that makes sense. I felt as though even I could feel and understand what the characters were saying, and I haven’t been to a church service in over a decade.
At the heart of this film is Fantasia Barrino’s performance in the role of Celie, and it is stellar. She has a way of playing such a wounded bird that when true joy erupts from her, it cracks your heart right open with the beauty of it. She hits you hard with a deep undercurrent of wistful melancholy, even in those happy moments, until a major turning point changes that. The rest of the female cast is excellent as well, but Fantasia really stands out. The men are generally good as well - it’s just that, because of either the direction, script alterations, or performances, most of them come off a little flat.
So, YES, it is a musical (there seems to be a ton of confusion about that in the general public) but this story is absolutely elevated by the story form, and it absolutely deserves to be seen.
Not really plot or character driven, this is more like one of those emotional rollercoaster/experiential type of movies. Think Gravity, where it’s less about the plot or Sandra Bullock and more about experiencing anxiety in space for 90 minutes. This plays with similar emotions, but with Ari Aster behind the camera there’s a stronger focus on subjective filmmaking and surrealism. The entire film is a unique, comedic nightmare. Unfortunately I think it’s also quite easily Aster’s worst film to date. To start off, it simply doesn’t have enough meat on the bones to keep the viewer engaged for the entire runtime, too often does it fall back to the same bag of tricks whenever we go into panic mode (e.g. people yelling, absurdist imagery, match cuts, dark comedy). I won’t say that it wasn’t effective or memorable, but it should’ve been condensed to the best moments. Moreover, it’s unable to carry itself with the characters or story. I found Beau to be a poorly developed protagonist, it’s hard to connect with him due the lack of detail in the writing and one-note performance by Phoenix. He’s a representation of an idea, and because of that he feels more like a type than a character. The bigger picture that the movie gets at is somewhat interesting, but like Midsommar, it could’ve dug a little deeper with its ideas (especially given its runtime). It doesn’t comment on social anxiety or paranoia in any way that’s particularly mindblowing, if anything it feels like a surface level exploration of its causes and effects. I think the movie is truly at its best when it’s simply Aster playing the viewer like a violin, the most interesting scenes here are constructed like a maze of emotions. Thankfully there’s more than enough of that, but like already mentioned, it’s not enough to carry a 3 hour movie. Aster continues to be a great filmmaking talent (excellent cinematography & editing, interesting sound design), but he needs a creative partner to reign himself in.
5/10
LIFF33 2019 #2
Time to spill the beans…’The Lighthouse’ is a masterpiece! I loved loved loved loved it! I loved every minute of it. One of my favorite movies of 2019 and I honestly don’t think anything can top it. A slow descent into madness that creeps into your subconscious and won’t be leaving anytime soon.
From the very first frame, I immediately knew this was going to be special. I was hooked throughout until the end credits.
Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson both deliver career defining performances. They play off each others insanity beautifully. I could tell just from the accents and dialect that plenty of homework went into making an authentic portrayal of the time.
Robert Pattinson is fantastic as a quiet and private lighthouse keeper that witness the madness slowly unfolding, but also feeds the audiences curiosity on revealing the strange happenings on the island. Pattinson is a chameleon when it comes to portraying characters.
Willem Dafoe, on the other hand, was mesmerizing as the old sea dog captain with a love for farting. His long and insane monologues are the main highlights, because it was so electrifying to watch it was hard not be captivated. He’s strict and often unpredictable, but once you see it, you won’t forget it.
I hope Robert Eggers continues making horror movies in the future, because right now he’s one of the best living directors working today. The slow-burn tension and lack of conventional scares seems to be his trademark so far. Every choice he made was so carefully thought out and the results is masterful. According to Eggers, they actually built a lighthouse from scratch and everything we see, including the weather, is genuine. Even if some tricky was used, it was so seamless I couldn’t tell what was fake.
I loved how the movie was shot; the dim black-and-white with the claustrophobic aspect ratio, giving it the appearance of a silent film born like a German expressionism - something you would’ve mistaken for a 1920/30’s horror folklore. Perfectly captures the time period and the overall dread. You really do feel cut off from the outside world and abandoned on this spectral-like island, and this black sheet of cloud strongly looming over the two men. A dark force in all directions, unseen but very eerie. The cold and heartless weather is a character itself. A big bully with salty intentions.
I adored the use of lighting through out, as the only light source is either natural light during daytime or candle lit lanterns, which cast many shadows that adds to the unease. There’s some gorgeous looking cinematography on display here. Seriously, even as am writing this right now I can memorize every single frame of this strange nightmare of a film. Absolutely breathtaking.
While the movie is mainly horror, but there is comedy sprinkled throughout that was actually pretty hilarious. Everything from Dafoe farting and some creative insults the characters would often spit at each other, which would later expand into long monologues that I sat back and watch in awe with a stupid grin on my face, because how something so silly can be so poetic. Never have I seen a movie that perfectly balances more than one genre so fluently. You can laugh at the moments where it’s suppose to be funny, but also take it seriously whenever it’s suppose to be taken seriously, which is sometimes all in one scene. The writing from Eggers is so excellent.
After only one viewing there was a lot I could easily dissect in terms of interpretation. There's masculinity and Greek mythology imagery that demonstrates a striking sense of power. There’s also a certain idea of sexuality being a sacred thing and the frustration it may bring. Or maybe it’s just a simple story about two guys on a rock getting drunk and then getting even drunker while holding each other until they drift off to sleep.
Overall rating: One of the best looking horror comedies of 2019.
Midsommar is a complicated beast. Those going for something as linear as Hereditary will be immediately disappointed by Midsommars somewhat convoluted plot elements and meandering pace. I sat in the cinema as the credits rolled by, deep in thought about what I just watched, and if it was any good. Nothing really sat well with me, and the film didn't really connect upon immediate completion, but I gave it time to digest.
Ari Asters two movies are very much at odds with each other. Hereditary slaps you with it's excellent presentation, pace, sense of dread and quality of acting on display. Then, upon further inspection, it's woven plot elements and symbolism shine through on subsequent viewing.
Midsommar is very much the opposite. The film almost dawdles in it's presentation and doesn't fully attack you with it's acting chops or narrative (although Florence is simply stunning in her portrayal of Dani). Midsommar more presents it's parts in a very matter-of-fact fashion, and then leaves it up to you to connect the dots of both the plot and what's on display. While there is far too much to unpack in this small comment section, I'd just like to detail some of my favourite themes on display in Midsommar, and why it went from a 6/10 during my cinema viewing, to a solid 8 - 8.5/10 upon reflection.
--- LONG DISCUSSION OF SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT ---
One of Midsommars central parallels is the individualism/selfishness of Western life and it's stark comparison to the commune we are introduced to. Examples of this are: During the intro, Dani is going through the trauma of a suicidal family member and her boyfriend, Christian, is encouraged by his friends to abandon her in her time of need telling her to see her therapist as it's not his problem. Christian echos these sentiments directly to Dani about her sister, telling her to leave her alone as she is just doing this for attention. Upon arriving at the commune in Sweden, Mark is unwilling to wait for Dani to be ready to take shrooms. Josh, knowing of Dani's recent trauma involving death, subjects her to the suicide of the elders for his own thesis and research. Christian uses the situation to further his own academic efforts, much to the annoyance of Josh. Everyone is acting in their own self interest regardless of the emotional toll this takes on their friendships. This is a stark contrast to how we see the commune deal with distress, emotion and personal issues. When Dani sees Christian cheating on her, the female members of the commune bawl, weep, scream and cry along with Dani, literally experiencing her burden with her to lessen the load. As described by Pelle, the commune "hold" you during your distress, helping you cope and living through those emotions with you. This is further cemented by the scene earlier in the movie, shortly after Dani's sister commits suicide. We see Dani hunched over Christian's lap overcome with emotion, screaming out the pain of the loss of her sister. Christian is anything but present however, his eyes vacant as if he weren't there with her at all. This is possibly my favourite theme of the movie, as it really paints how alone we are in modern society regardless of how many people we surround ourselves with. How many people are actually there for us in our time of need? Sure, they might be physically present, but are they actually there, sharing our pain? It's truly terrifying to think about.
My other favourite theme is who is and isn't a bad person. I've seen many people online say they think Christian is a horrible boyfriend for how he treats Dani. While I can understand their position, I struggle to see how Christian is the bad guy for his actions. Christian finds himself in a dying relationship which he is mentally checked out from but decides to stay to help her through the grief of losing her parents and sister. Christian even goes as far as to bring her on vacation with him to help her through her trauma, even though he wants to split up with her. Would the audience have prefered Christian leave Dani right after she lost her family? That would have been MUCH worse. Do these actions warrant what happens to Christian? I don't think so at all. Christian is so misunderstood in this movie, I can't wait to see it again to draw more conclusions on his character. Is Josh a bad person for wanting to fully envelope himself in a foreign culture? Although we know it is largely for academic gain, Josh does seem to love learning about the culture of these people, wanting to see how they operate and know every intricacy of their faith. Does this warrant his murder for trying to document their sacred texts? Should an outsider be murdered for enjoying and absorbing someone elses culture and customs, or should they be thanked for their interest and passion? (Sidenote, I see Josh's character as a direct reflection of the usual racial stereotypes we see in movies of this ilk. Usually we see the white academic researching the savage native/minority tribe, but Josh is the exactly flip of this, which is a nice touch). Were Connie and Simon wrong for coming into another culture and expressing disgust at their customs? Should they have been so outwardly disgusted and vocal about their disapproval while being welcomed in by the commune? Sure it didn't warrant their ultimate fate, but this small subplot asks an interesting question about outsiders attempting to shape and alter other cultures and customs as it doesn't sit with their ideals.
Other small details:
While it's directly conveyed to the viewer that the red haired girl is attempting to cast a love incantation on Christian via pubes in his pie and runes under his bed, very little attention is given to the fact that Christians drink is a slight shade darker than everyone elses. From the tapestry we see at the start of the festival, we know exactly what the red haired girl has slipped into his drink :face_vomiting: Fantastic subtle horror/grossness.
Pelle talks about how his parents died in a fire and the commune helped him through the trauma of that loss. After the ending, it's pretty clear the fire wasn't an accident, and they evidently died for some kind of ritual.
Artwork above Dani's bed at the beginning shows a girl with crown kissing a bear. While direct foreshadowing to latter events, it also asks the question if this was all fate. Dani's sister's final message reads "I see black now" (potentially a reference to The Black One) before killing herself and her parents. Were Dani's parents 72 and this was the end of their cycle? Was Dani's sister already a distant member of the commune?
Runes are scattered all throughout the film to foreshadow certain character arcs or add more meaning. My favourite hidden rune is the doors to the temple, which when open, make the rune for "Opening" or "Portal". Amazing attention to detail.
Yeah, this movie is much MUCH better on reflection and I absolutely cannot wait to see it again. I really hope Ari's 3 hour 40 minute directors cut is released so there is more to dissect. While not as immediately impressive has Hereditary, Midsommar definitely has the layers and complexity to be a slowburn horror classic.
EDIT: I am now 4 days out from my first viewing and I've not stopped thinking about this movie. I've become a frequent visitor of the films subreddit and have even purchased/listened to the films dread-inducing yet somehow joyous soundtrack a number of times throughout the days. I've been reading up on runes and their meanings, reading up set analysis for hidden meanings and any other small details others can find. A movie hasn't vibed with me like this for a long long time so to reflect this, I think it's only right I bump my score from an 8/10 to a 9/10. When I can get my hands on the digital download/Blu-Ray, I'm sure this might even go higher.
This is the Unforgiven of superhero movies, a brutal yet tender portrayal of former heroes growing old. Logan is tired and world weary, waiting for death to take away his pain. Charles is 90, riddled with drugs to mute his mind, his "super weapon." Despite their friendship their relationship is fractured. Into their lives comes a new mutant and a road trip begins.
I don't want to say much more, having given away a little of the premise already explored in the films trailers. This is a tough, violent and sad film with few moments of humour. There is action but not of the blockbuster kind, one key car chase is like something from a 70's thriller.
This is the swan song of Logan and Charles, both actors giving it their all in their final performances as these characters. To bring them back after this film would undermine their work and the story here.
The film is brilliant and I can't recommend it enough - don't expect a traditional X-Men movie and you will be blown away. If the film itself were a mutant I would say its genes had been spliced with Mad Max and Shane, with a little bit of Children of the Corn (and I mean that in a good way). Excelsior!
Once again, the actors doing impressions/playing against type is the best thing the film has going for it.
Jack Black stole the last movie, this time that award goes to Kevin Hart (first two acts) and Awkwafina (final third).
Having said that, the movie that's build around the impression comedy isn't as good, nor fun, as last time.
The story takes the T2 approach of making a sequel, i.e. switch the roles that everyone plays, and keep the story the same.
Unfortunately, the approach can't save the film from its own poor choices regarding the filmmaking.
The action in this is quite poor, to which some people will undoubtedly respond: well, it's supposed to be cheesy.
To be fair, I probably would've given a pass for it if there was an analog charm to it, but I just refuse to do that for lazy, digitized ugliness.
Moreover, the comedy isn't as sharp and witty as it was before.
Surprisingly, there's a lot of reliance on slapstick, which almost makes it feel like this was made for a younger demographic than the last one.
There's not a single scene that matches Karen Gillan's outstanding seduction scene from the previous film.
Also, there's a lot of expository dialogue that shouldn't be there.
Finally, the ending begs for comparisons to Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom , which makes me go: out of anything you could've done, why on earth would you willingly choose to go there?
4.5/10
Not only is Endgame the most ambitious movie Marvel has made, but it also is the grandest. Even more so than Infinity War. No other movie can utilise the emotional ties that have been embedded within our hearts over the build of 11 years. And boy does it use them well. Stringing together scene after scene of nothing but impactful tension in the third act. But this doesn't leave the other two boring or bland. It allows these parts to build off of the aftermath of Infinity War. Never once was I bored, or felt like I was sitting there for three hours. For the action is no letdown, lovely dynamics are interwoven for a fantastic spectacle.
I don't want to say much, but it is hands down the best Marvel can offer. It is not Infinity War, Part II. It's something much better, the true culmination of everything and I do mean everything. The fan service here is through the roof and done so damn creatively. Not one thing feels hammered into the story. Even some major elements in its plot stem from the smallest details of previous movies I would have never seen coming. Taking even lesser liked fragments and stringing them into a more meaningful poetic story than the original movie would have ever told.
Using style and grace to tell this bold epic is strong with this movie. Gone are the golds and purples of Infinity War. And in comes a bleak atmosphere with hope lingering yet far. Visual storytelling is a bit lacking, but that is not what you come here to expect. You have been supported with all the exposition you need in previous movies. Since this is the case, it must be judged as a singular part of a series.
The themes in this movie are unity, utilisation, and more importantly; revelation. Kevin Feige has given this movie a lot to work with through these themes and has finally made his magnum opus.
Yes, there are a few hiccups. But that's to be expected. Captain Marvel was not given her full potential again sadly. But worked well with what was given. There is an amazing moment within the third act that truly gives her and a certain cast of characters time to shine. Plus the time it takes to leave out is a bit jarring. Not to mention, that to me Thanos seemed less threatening than in Infinity War because of something that happens. Still great impact by Josh Brolin of course.
Everyone will cry. Everyone will laugh. Everyone will leave sad yet satisfied with this amazing conclusion to the MCU so far. It's no Dark Knight, but then again, that was more drama than superhero epic. But this is modern hero gold. Here is the Holy Grail of superhero cinema.
9.6/10
8/10 After second viewing - Hype obviously had its hands around my neck I admit. Review doesn't meet my current thoughts about the film
Check here for my rankings on the MCU:
https://trakt.tv/users/corruptednoobie/lists/my-mcu-rankings?sort=rank,ascCheck here for my 2019 movie rankings that I've seen:
https://trakt.tv/users/corruptednoobie/lists/best-to-worst-2019-movies-so-far?sort=rank,asc
The new Winnie-the-Pooh film is just superb! I absolutely love it. When I first heard it was coming out, I was very apprehensive as a Pooh fan. Especially when the title "Christopher Robin" is too similar to the title of the biopic about A.A. Milne that came out last year, "Goodbye Christopher Robin".... I had a feeling that Disney might have just been jumping on the bandwagon, following the success of that film.
But even if they WERE jumping on the bandwagon, I'm pleased to say they have jumped on it beautifully. They have captured the characters exactly how they should be. The film is genuinely hilarious in parts, and certain moments had me laughing to the point where I didn't think I'd stop. They also had little touches of Milne's type of subtle, whimsical humour. There were emotional moments, and beautiful storytelling with deep meaning and messages throughout, just like the books.
It's difficult to predict how much the kids would enjoy it compared to the cartoons we’re so familiar with. I wonder if there were too many scenes of being an adult, and not enough scenes of playing in the forest. But I'm certain that there's a huge audience out there of grown up Winnie-the-Pooh fans, who aren’t really grown up at heart. (I can’t be the only one!) And for us, this film is perfect. I hope the kids enjoy it too.
I would absolutely love it if they do a live action version of the original Winnie-the-Pooh stories. Disney has already covered these books in the original cartoon series of features back in the ‘60s. However, I genuinely believe that if they find the right actor to play Christopher Robin as a young boy, then it would be brilliant. They would have to work really hard on capturing essence of the characters and the stories, and so there would be a lot of pressure. But this film proves that it can be done.
This film’s opening scene is based on the last story from “The House At Pooh Corner”. My only small criticism is that I don’t think they chose the right actor to play Christopher Robin as a boy. He was good, but he looked like he was acting. For me, he just didn’t play it realistic enough. I’m probably being too picky!
The boy who played Christopher Robin in last year’s film, Will Tilston, has set the standard high. But if someone could play him as well as he did, then a live action based on the original books would be perfect. I may well get in touch with Disney myself and suggest it.
