Trakt for iOS
Works on iPhone and iPad.
I’ve tried to watch 3 new movies today – Vanquish (2021), Nobody (2021), The Courier (2021). They have one thing in common - we're (back) in the very familiar political era where Russians are again the biggest and most amoral, vicious, evil ever. Here is the formula - (A[Popular character actor]) + (B[Video game plot]) + (C[Russian villains) = 2021 Hollywood movies.
Nobody (2021) and Vanquish (2021) are basically the same movie. RIP Mexican (or other Latin American) drug lords, you no longer exist in Hollywood world because you might hurt sensitive American feelings. Now it’s all about Russian mafia.
Nobody (2021) is a celebration of American masculinity. Violence is the answer and is so awesome; Russians are bad, killing them leads to a fulfilling American life. That’s the moral of the story. Seriously! That’s it! The protagonist killed a bunch of people under the pretext Russians went to his house to get revenge. But it’s okay, it’s okay. Why? Because, he is 1) American, and 2) a former CIA agent, so it’s totally cool that he killed so many people. What are the consequences of his actions? Well, just like in real life after Americans are done with brutalizing and murdering people in foreign counties, they go on to live the American dream - a white picket fence suburban house with blonde wife and dumb children.
Everything offered up here borders on cliché. The writing is super bland and predictable. The seven-minute introduction of the ~~quirky psychotic villain (who is as generic as they come) is a trope that is already tired enough. The characters are insanely one-dimensional, with no real traits that factor into the plot (besides "the Russian villain", "the wife", etc.), there's zero purpose behind anyone's actions or the movie itself in its entirety.
I'm so over movies about American (or British) exceptionalism. Americans just loooove the fantasy Hollywood version of themselves.
All three movies offset the eyeroll-worthy ugliness of a 2021 film being about an American/Brit gleefully slaughtering a bunch of Russians. A heinous laundering of American/Bri'ish liberal chauvinism. They cater to a single demographic, and relies on unoriginal content to cover up the fact they are way too masturbatory that nobody outside of the target audience can relate. But this is the future of American/Bri'ish cinema, we are just going to constantly recycle the same themes and topics over and over again until the end of time.
I'm reminded of Dziga Vertov's comment on Western Cinema from 99 years ago.
quote “To the American adventure film with its showy dynamism and to the dramatizations of the American Pinkertons the Kinoks say thanks for the rapid shot changes and the close-ups. Good…but disorderly, not based on a precise study of movement…still lacking a foundation. A cliche.”
Denis 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
I think this is an important movie, it is also a good movie. Full disclosure: I am a white, middle class, post-graduate educated, Canadian, born in the 50s. This is why this movie was important to me: I live in a city that has unjustly treated black communities and, although I have sought to be better informed about the history and the issues, my perspective has been from a distance. This film helped me understand that the expectational presets of being black are radically different from the presets of being white. Also, my understanding of cultural appropriation grew - I can see why whites emulating black culture is missing the point rather than establishing cultural bridges. But, most importantly, for me, this film underlined the importance of each of us being authentic to who we are and to, humbly, engage in listening conversations, respect our differences and transcend that which divides us. That's was my take away. This is why this is a good film: I found the characters well drawn and the performances convincing (Amandla Stenberg is an actor to watch - she has been a credit to every role she's inhabited). The story was well crafted. The tragedy real and the relationships compelling. In our politically charged culture, there is an audience fatigue for movies with a point (I was disappointed to be only one of three people who came to watch this movie in the theatre), but don't miss this good movie, it's worth the watch. I give this film a 7.9 (very good) out of 10. [Drama]
My first thought as this film warped up and the credits began to roll was “people are going to hate this”. I shared this sentiment with my friend who I was with and he seemed to agree.
To start with most of the marketing centered on the rather impressive cast, the posters bosting the tag-line “The Greatest Zombie Cast Ever Disassembled”. This marketing approach does give of the impression that audience will be treated to a light-hearted Zom-Com featuring a group of interesting and bizarre characters. This is only sort of true, The film has a dry wit to it that often makes it difficult to tell whether or not what you are watching is supposed to be funny, at multiple points I found myself having to contain my laughter despite the fact the nothing particularly funny was happening on screen but that does suit my sense of humour.
The jokes being delivered in a unique way is not what I think will divide audiences (although it will contribute) one thing I did not expect was just how much Jarmusch wanted to say about our current society. The film jumps from being about consumerism to the environment to even folding back in and commenting on itself constantly. It hits you on the head with obvious messages about not harming the planet, being nice to people and not allowing brands and products to define you but also has the nerve to feature meta comedy and bizarre side-plots that go absolutely nowhere.
This is the point where I tell you that I actually quite enjoyed how off-center and comically nonsensical the experience was. If like me you have seen many zombie movies and are looking for something fresh then this might just be what you are looking for and if not at least there’s a pretty sweat Night of the Living Dead reference in it.
This film certainly is not for everyone but I recommend watching it anyway to see if you find something to like, however if you do watch it and hate it don’t tell me I didn’t warn you.
“This case is like a donut
with a hole
in the middle of a donut hole.
Actually,
it's a donut within a donut's hole.”
‘Knives Out’ subverted my expectations...in a good way. A smartly written whodunit movie that manages to be both humorous and classy. The kind of murder mystery that never fails to entertain. Pleasing both cinephiles and mainstream audiences. Perfectly balance, as all things should be. It basically pulls a Hitchcock on us.
Rian Johnson is a great director, but at times has silly ideas. On the other hand, when given the right material I think he’s a great director and writer. He’s also a clever man, but never came off as annoying. The dialogue was so sharply written that I could tell the cast loved every minute of soaking up and delivering these lines. The cinematography was nothing short but beautiful and will often linger in rooms of the house which helps the audience immerse in the overall setting.
One of the tightest scripts of the year with raw humor and a satisfying mystery/comedy.
The cast is stellar, but the main stand outs for me were Daniel Craig, Ana de Armas, and Chris Evans. I loved Daniel Craig’s Southern drawl which I didn’t expect at first, but I was amazed of how far he went for it. Often times it reminded me of Frank Underwood from ‘House of Cards’. He plays detective Benoit Blanc, AKA CSI: KFC. At one point during the movie he delivers one of the funniest monologues in the entire movie, which was brilliantly delivered by Craig. He should seriously try out more comedy roles.
Dose anyone remember when Ana de Armas starred in Eli Roth’s ‘Knock Knock’? Well look at her now. She was absolutely excellent in this movie. The running joke throughout the entire movie is her character can’t lie and whenever she dose, she vomits on the spot. How ironic, yet I love the comedic irony behind it.
Chris Evans plays a spoiled child with a slimy grin during the worst situations. The over privilege black sheep of the family. This is very against type for Evans, especially when his character hates dogs, which I would imagine being difficult for Evans since he’s a dog lover in real life. Also the different sweaters he wears in every scenes was impeccable.
The rest of the cast manage to shine individually in this crowded movie. Although at times some of them felt like background wall paper compared to others. However that never takes away from what else ‘Knives Out’ has to offer.
Toni Collette dose a great impression of Gwyneth Paltrow. Michael Shannon plays a wimpy son to a crime-writer Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer). Despite the small screen time, Plummer is still charming as always. While Jamie Lee Curtis and her character brings the dramatic elements into play. She’s uninterested in the humorous quarrel during the grim situation, as early on she reminds everyone that her father just died.
Judging it as a whodunit mystery, the pay off itself is slick. The events leading to the death are revealed early into the movie, and instead Johnson remains steps ahead from the audience. There’s an underlining social commentary beneath the foul play. The themes of privilege and underprivileged with the sour taste of bitterness throughout. Nothing deep or new, but at least is trying to say something rather than being one thing.
Overall rating: My House. My Rules. My Coffee!!!
Long, plodding but exceptionally well made with an explosively "Tarantino" ending, OUATIH is difficult to recommend but enjoyable to watch. Outside of it's Hollywood history lessons and 60's and 70's nostalgia, viewers may be disappointed by the pictures surprising lack of signature dialogue or overt violence that usually comes with Quentins name when attached to a motion picture. But if you put stock in overal production value, clever links/theming through the characters on screen, and sweeping statements about the state of Hollywood both now and then, OUATIH might just be worth the cost of admission.
Personally, I'm still very much a fan of Tarantino's heyday with Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Django and Inglorious being up on my favourites. These movies seem to be much more immediately entertaining, while still offering Quentins usual attentitive level of detail and depth. OUATIH offers the depth, but never really pulls out all of the Tarantino hallmarks you've come to expect, so I'm giving it a 7/10.
Edit: I've mused over this movie for 24 hours and I think it's going up a point. Some of it's dialogue is pretty memorable and the themes on show upon reflexion are much deeper and open to interpretation than I initially thought. Definitely going to give this one another spin when it hits streaming services/digital download.
Interesting points of note (And thus, spoilers):
All of Cliff Booth's solo scenes are shot like an old western. The long walk to Georges cabin, the watching bystanders, very "old western" inspired filming. In the final scene, it is shown that Cliff is stabbed in the hip. Rick Dalton says, while reading his book on set, that Easy Breezy was the coolest guy, until he hurt his hip. This is an interesting juxtaposition between Cliff and Ricks characters. Rick is desperately trying to be the cowboy that Cliff is living as on the daily.
Rick mentions at the start of the movie, when Roman Polanski pulls up next to him with Sharon in the car, that he could be one pool party away from being in a Polanski movie. At the end of the movie, after roasting the Manson killer in his pool, he is invited into the Polanski residence, which would assumedly lead to him starring in one of his movies. Cool bit of foreshadowing.
It's ok, design and animation are well done, some fun things here and there but probably not worth remembering for long.
The pre internet part is ok, it gets you back into the story and characters if you've already forgotten the first one. The modem, access to internet and the discovery of its main actors is fun, but it gets old pretty fast. Only part really worth it is Knowsmore, fun, while being a pretty accurate description of reality.
A good part is the Slaughter Race section, that looks a little more adult, and Shank and her team are pretty cool.
It gets less interesting towards the end. I could say that the Dark Web and virus representations were extremely stupid, but they're actually not that far from what you would see in any, even more serious, mainstream media. The whole Ralph does meme videos thing was mostly boring. Also the scenarists seemed to have lost notion of their story's time, like the Internet is flooded by Ralph videos, it's been shared everywhere, there are tv news section on it and... not even an hour has passed.
The Disney princesses scene, teased in the trailer was one of the best parts, with a instant mythic status on Merida intervention.
The only good meme video is the post credits scene with a good ol' rickroll.
For all the rest, it's obviously full of references, but they're usually not particularly clever or funny, so it keeps you following the story but nothing really memorable.
About the last week of middle school for a very socially awkward little girl (Kayla). Her relationship with her dad also plays a big role. Having two girls right around this age this hit really close to home, whoo boy this was a tough, but good, movie. So many "oh god, I can't watch" cringe moments... And yes, I cried (just a little).
I found myself really rooting for Kayla. She's the kind of character you can see bits and pieces of lots of kids in. Despite all her social awkwardness, you know she means well. And I loved her relationship with her dad. I thought it was portrayed incredibly and believably, with all it's own little awkward idiosyncrasies. Teenager daughters are their own brand of parenting fun...
And damn did Elsie Fisher do a good job as Kayla. I really hope to see more from her as she killed in this movie.
Being such a huge part of so many teens' lives now, "screens" are a major plot device and get a ton of focus. I thought the commentary on screen usage among teens was done well. Blatant at times, but there were a few really subtle touches I appreciated.
This isn't a "kids" movie, but for anyone wanting to watch this with their kid I'd note that there is one scene that might be pretty uncomfortable, even more so than the general uneasiness of the rest of the movie. Nothing super bad, just be warned, here's a very minor spoiler: she hears about "blowjobs" so she turns to the internet to do some research and gets predictable (hilarious) results. We watch a video with her.
Initial Reaction
Go in blind, I don't recommend the trailer either.
I want to say, this movie isn't a traditional horror that everyone will enjoy. Like all horror, it's subjective, and this film will suffer for you if you don't enjoy the phycology and actual character drama over jumpscares. Not that there is anything wrong with that, this just isn't the movie for you.
The Good
• The acting is actual gold. Every single cast member in here, pulls off a fantastic role. Everyone seems to think all the credit should go to Toni Collette, as she does deserve all the praise for her performance here. But for me, the real star was Alex Wolff. He was phenomenal, I wouldn't believe the corny kid from 'Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle', would be able to pull off such an emotional portrayal of dread and sadness. Some of the best acting I've seen in a film.
• The tension is so powerfully gut wrenching. It makes you feel involved with these family members. I don't want to say much more at all about this, it's better to just see it for yourself.
• Cinematography is unbelievably gorgeous. The shots are framed with such genius and boldness, that you get jarred by the cuts, yet hardly notice them when they needn't be. The long shots between rooms, are something that fuels the feel of this film, and goddamn does it work so well.
•The scares. Now, this is probably where it gets iffy for some. But for myself, I was so freaking scared with the amount of build and suspense they put you through. I loved every minute, and when I managed to get a second to breathe. I took long deep breathes.
The Bad
• Unintentional funny moments. Yes, this film also suffers from this typical horror fault. But, as I said before. It's completely subjective. If you get in the mood because you were able to get drawn in by the tension, this won't bother you. However, several people laughed at some things that I could see funny as well. But maybe it's just our basic human reaction to release ourselves from the pain this film shows, it's relentless. Maybe that's it's purpose.
Spoiler Things
• I'm not going to say much, but the scene that made everyone gasp and freeze. Was so wonderful, I see people talking about it for years. As a great showcase of how a movie can be paced differently from the normal formula.
Conclusion
This movie got to me. Much like 'It Follows', it will stick with you for the same reasons of it being like a spooky childhood fear we all had. I understand why people will find this a bore, or just not scary. I get that and see where they are coming from. But for me, I can say with confidence, this is one of my most favourite horror films of all time. It's a masterwork, I enjoyed and hated my time with this movie. It ruined my afternoon, and I have to give credit to a film that does with such skill. I highly recommend if you're a fan of thrillers or just strong phycological dramas.
Really good movie. The whole premise being hunted by sound and what that means for that situation/world was great! The silence, inability to speak and almost constant worry will get to you from the movie.
Story: 8: I like the story as it was refreshing premise. What would happen if suddenly we humans were hunted by creatures that are extraordinary in hearing. The story had some shocking developments pretty early, and kept tension up. One possible downside was that at time it felt like the tension is build up artificially, as one bad thing happens after another. Overall very enjoyable!
Characters: 8: List of characters is narrow in the movie, basically evolves around family of 5 with 2 parents and 3 kids. I like each and one of them. Everyone was little special and I could imagine their reaction being like that in the world. I especially liked that interaction between the Father (John Krasinski) and his daughter (Millicent Simmonds)
Acting: 8: I like all of the acting. Especially Emily Blunt's (Evelyn Abbot character) performance was great, believable and delivering emotions over. All of the kids characters and acting was also great and deserve thumbs up
Visuals: 9: Really great. Lets start with the antagonists, the "predators". From the start of the movie they are used very sporadically, which build on the mystery and thrill. Later when they are shown they are for one never shown in full (so that your brain will always fill in more horrifying details), but when details is shown (head etc) it is in so great detail and well though out visual concept that I loved it.
The camera use felt appropriate for the movie, and all the details of the world (e.g. use of sand mo muffle steps, monopoly game with cotton figures, all the small detail was really great and though out)
Music: 9: The music but also the use of sound, or the absence of was great. It build on terror as for example with the daughter character, who is deaf, the sounds are off and you as view don't have any audio cue if there is a danger right around the corner, which you get with the other characters. In this move, less is more and the less matches well with the story.
Other observations:
Refreshing "horror"/"sci-fi" that matches well the premise, story, characters, visuals and use of sound! Will rank one of my favorite movies of 2018
*Sometimes Hollywood shows it's ironic side. Who would've thought Michael Bay - the uncrowned king of noisy popcorn entertainment - would link his name to a film in which silence is key. Sure, he acts as a producer and fortunaly doesn't seem to have had an influence on the actual end result. * All praise goes to John Krasinski, who has delivered an oppressive horror debut with A Quiet Place.
There are even two reason why this is a bold movie. In the first place we've got the theme of the movie; silence. The characters in the film barely say a word to each other, and mainly communicate in sign language and bare whispers. This way of acting is related to keeping an imminent danger away from their immediate environment. There is only a few short scenes where they can afford to utter an word. Due to the constant tension - which is already increasing enormously because of a simple toy - the film is nowhere near to be caught at a dull moment. Second, it's surprising that the creators do not give in to the explanatory urge, which would possibly detract from the mystery surrounding the movie. Only a strategically placed A4 paper on a bulletin board gives a few keypoints. There's no need to know more about these creatures - which are beautifully created by Indrustrial Light & Magic - , because they are not the emotional core of the film.
Director, screenwrite and protagonist John Krasinski distinguishes himself emphatically from genre notes by not only using the effects of silence and sound as a stand-alone source of tension. He also makes it clear how people feel human precisely because they can produce sound, and how frightening it must feel to force them out of necessity.
With A Quiet Place Krasinski sketches a recognizable, but in it's simplicity no less, an impressive post-apocalyptic film set; a fallen traffic light in the arid grass, an abandoned supermarket, weeds among the paving stones. It is day 89 since the sampls have thinned the world's population to a few tufts of survivors. A mother (Emily Blunt), a father (John Krasinski), and their three children scurry barefoot through the aisles of a supermarket. Mother scans medicine tubes. But the tension is so well-crafted that by now you already now, if one of those tubes falls.. it's trouble.
The film is full of similar situations. Kransinski sought and found frightening moments in the everyday and made a full-bloode modern horror film, conceptual and inventive, that undresses the genre at it were, exposes the laws, to emphasize the rules so that the essence of fear can be investigated. He even created space to rearrange teh rules: in the opening scene their youngest child (age 4) is devoured without mercy - even in this genre a taboo.
As It Follows deepened the fear of sex and Get Out the fear of white superiority thinking, A Quiet Place talks about the fear of the sounds produced by one's own body, and about the responsibility that goes with it. Whoever wants to see a metaphor for or against the freedom of expression is not disappointed, although Krasinski's motivation seems apolitical. In interviews, the director - married in daily life to co-star Emily Blunt - told about the fear that overwhelmed him when the couple expected their second child. He wrote down the fear: Blunt's character is pregnant - which in addition to magisterial tension building (how in the world do you put a child into the world in silence?) Then there is another secret weapon, in the shape of 15-year-old deaf actress Millicent Simmonds. Last year she made her debut in Todd Haynes' Wonderstruck, here she surpasses herself - also because she convinced Krasinski not to play a number of crucial scenes in spoken language but in sign language.
That towards the end the movie doesn't follow the rules that closely anymore, soit. A Quiet Place shows in a frigthening and even touching way how noisy the human species really is.
8.8/10
This is an ok distraction, what you would expect from the usual Z monster movies, but with the budget to make it look (very) good. Maybe even too much budget, that allowed them to include many over the top cliche action scenes instead of focusing on the monster action.
I mean did it really need a 0G space scene ? Parachuting from a crashing plane ? And a B2 bomber ? I was a little disappointed in what was supposed to be the climax, city battle and monsters battle, so a little more attention to that instead would have been better. More military action in the city battle for instance, lots of tanks, some fighter jets, etc. (though jets are maybe not great for city fights ?)
And what's with the B2 ? What's the point of using the most expensive ever furtive plane during the day to send a missile on animals from several kilometers away ? Did they fear they had radars ?
The first wolf battle is nice though, and the crocodile looks AMAZING. The SURPRISE: the wolf can fly was a nice touch too.
The interaction between The Rock and the gorilla is nice. Can't say the acting is that great, so it feels a little weird, nut it makes for some funny jokes.
Morgan's character is really cool, though he's just that. He's clearly been written with a description: "cool cowboy, rough guy but nice, smart enough to be on the right side". That's it, nothing more. His background, job, role and interactions with the rest of the characters are inexistant or makes no sense with no questions asked.
The really bad part is the antagonists. There we go way beyond cliche. Typical rich guys, ready to go beyond what is legal or moral to make money. They apparenlty lead a billion dollars corporation, able to have its own space laboratory, though we barely see any employee, They seem to be the only ones in control and who knows all the nad stuff. But at the same time they're the stupid duo you would expect in a Home Alone level comedy. And the result is weird. The sister is definitely shown to be tougher, but she just looks that way compared to her brother. She might have been an ok character if by herself. But he's so stupid and useless and played so badly that it's painful to watch each scene he is in. It's bleeding bad (non) writing through the screen. And none of what they do makes any sense. Hey, let's make all the monsters come right tot the top of our building. What could go wrong ?
Naomie Harris' character is nonexistent. You could litterally remove her and not a thing would change in the movie. Her only useful action is to put the antidote on Claire before she's eaten which is a great wtf because we've never seen George have any interest in eating people so how could it have been a viable strategy ? It would have been much more likely that he'd just punch her out of the building and out goes the antidote.
I was also surprised by the intro declaring CRISPR a WMD but I checked and some US officials actually referred to it as one. Don't think it's been officially categorized this way though.
Let's start by the obvious: comparing with the first one. The basic principle is kinda kept, people end up in the game in real life. It's a jungle full of dangerous creatures and they have to finish the game to get back. However this one is more of a kid movie than the first. A lot less on the adventure side, it's basically just a jungle themed comedy with some action scenes.
The scenario is really basic, the game part even more. There's no tension, they're never really in danger. They start with three lives and, obviously, finish with only one left each, but deaths are mostly jokes and happenng out of danger zones. Gillan's character takes a bullet once. That's the only real death. The other includes:
- the mandatory out of nowhere death to introduce the danger and life system (eaten by a hippo, quite cool, and brutal)
- being pushed by another player (out of a danger zone)
- 2 strategic death, using it as a game mechanism
- one is given
- being bitten by a mosquito (out of a danger zone)
- eating cake (out of a danger zone)
- being scared by a squirrel
No that many dangerous animals, the villains are just riding around and the lead villain is basically inexistent. The game levels only offer minimal challenge. So yeah, not nearly as thrilling as the first one on the adventure side.
But if you take it as a comedy, it's actually a pretty good one. The jokes and situations are really funny. The characters are quite good. And the actors even better. The fact that they all end up in game characters that are they total opposite gives them opportunities to play both their own cliche character and their opposite. And they do it quite well.
Bethany's character is a cliche pushed to the extreme which is already funny, and annoying, in real life, but when played by Jack Black, wow, that's hilarious. Superb performance.
The Rock being at the same time his usual badass and scared of squirrels is surprisingly good too. Just a standard nerd IRL, nothing special.
Martha has the best IRL character, her response to the gym teacher was brutal. And also the best in-game character. Flying kicks and dance fighting FTW. Karen Gillan is stunning.
Can't say that Hart gives much of a performance in comparison. He's playing the same comic relief token black character that
could have been imported from any other movie. Not even in sync with the IRL counterpart.
The pilot is bland. He looks interesting when introduced, knowing all the traps, appearing to have mastered life in the game, kinda like Robin Williams' character in the first one, but nothing comes out of it.
T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) is a character that had a wonderful introduction in Captain America: Civil War. A graceful presence in that film, his revenge mission and the way he acted about it, with his seemingly calm and collected point of view, turned him into an interested new addition to that film and the MCU. After this, I felt I wasn’t really in need of another origin story, or a story that generally felt like a “character beginning”.
With that in mind, I think Black Panther was the ideal film for where we are right now with the MCU. Rather than a beginning, it continues T’Challa’s story almost directly from where we left off, but with a particular focus on bringing us into Wakanda and showing us what the destination has to offer… which is a lot. Hidden in plain sight (and appropriately referred to as “El Dorado” once in the film), it’s an absolutely stunning metropolis filled with incredibly advanced technology which apparently extends to all aspects of life.
What made the Wakandans interesting for me was the fact that they don’t show some sort of “sci-fi” character behaviour despite the futuristic advancements. Society remains deeply rooted into traditions, which is shown predominantly through the process of succession to the throne with the challenges presented to the heir. Aspects of daily life in the city appear to be “normal” enough, creating a rather unique blend of the most advanced technologies on Earth with present-day mentalities and cultures (such as their clothing/body features). It’s the ultimate in representation within a word heavy on science fiction.
The film has the necessary tie-ins you would expect, which are not too many so that it can exist and sustain itself on its own legs (personally, I couldn’t say the same for Spider-Man: Homecoming, for instance). Other than our hero, we have the return of Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis) as a secondary antagonist, having more importance here than in his previous appearances; and Everett Ross (Martin Freeman) echoing our eyes within Wakanda.
I suppose the biggest issue the film deals with is the hidden status of Wakanda. Though the majority of its citizens agree with it remaining hidden (and so it has been since the very beginning of the Vibranium development), others support revealing everything to the world, with the argument that all the advancements can be used to the benefit of black people across the globe as a weapon against oppression. In the middle of this, we have the main villain, Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan), eager to allow Wakanda to become public as soon as he gets his hands (or claws) on the throne. The backstory and reasoning behind his actions turn him into a more compelling villain than a lot of previous, MCU villains.
Given the importance of following traditions set by ancient tribes, this works in their detriment, as Killmonger (which sounds better than “Iron Monger”) could simply swoop in, take over and immediately make decisions that affect everyone despite hundreds of years of history – it’s pure dictatorship, yet you can’t help but see his perspective as someone who was wronged by the Wakandans and their laws when he was but a small child. Now, after a life of war, all he does is use those very same laws against the ones who have been upholding them for centuries. The tensions created were good to watch, although the support Killmonger received from a whole sector of Wakanda came way too easily. Yes, it’s hard to argue against efficiency when Killmonger simply waltz in with Klaue’s body, something two Kings haven’t been able to accomplish – but I disliked how W’Kabi (Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya) went from being T’Challa’s friend and supporter to fiercely opposing all about him within seconds.
Something very strange about Black Panther is that despite being a superhero movie with the titular character, it feels more like “Wakanda: The Movie”. And something I did feel was that after roughly a third of the film goes by, it feels like T’Challa somehow loses protagonism. In hindsight, other than some visually great fight scenes, I didn’t feel like there was something that specifically singled out T’Challa as the main character other than being “the heir”. What I mean is, as good as he was as Black Panther, I didn’t feel like he had enough moments to really shine – if anything, all characters surrounding him outshone him when Wakanda was in trouble. I think I was left with a more lasting impression of the character after Civil War than here, despite really liking the film.
Overall, I was happy. The only aspect I disliked, which I almost didn’t want to bring up, were the Disney comedy bits. I know at this point we just have to deal with it as it isn’t really something that goes away… but that comedy takes me out of the film instantly. Maybe there weren’t as many as in other films and I didn’t really mind the funny scenes with the sister – I’m not opposed to the designated “funny character” – but to me the rest were cringeworthy, such as M’Baku’s jokes (Winston Duke, who was Dominic in Person of Interest!!) after T’Challa was healed, which just felt off-character to me. But well, I suppose the majority of audiences respond well to it (in my viewing everyone was laughing their ass off).
Black Panther will return in Avengers: Infinity War... guess it’s time to wait once more!
I've never read MotOE before so I don't know if it differs from the book. I will say that this is not the most red herring plot twisty mystery movie I've ever seen. Of course that title goes to Clue but this film isn't even second place. There are turns and just a few twists. Enough that I felt satisfied but not so many that it felt cheesy. A big thing for me with mystery media is whether or not I could have solved it. One of the most frustrating things for me reading The Red Headed League (iirc) was that the key clue for Sherlock was dirt on the knees of a man who came to the door. A clue that was not described and thus I had no chance to untangle. It's much easier and thus much less forgivable in visual media for clues to be hidden away where I can't see them.
All of this to conclude that MotOE does a good job of providing clues that someone paying attention could pick up on. I didn't solve everything but when Poirot solved a question I felt like I immediately saw how he did it and that if I had wanted to pause the film I might have been able to solve it as he did. Not for every clue or every twist but for enough that I felt satisfied. All in all I was happy with it.
After seeing several people on SM recommend that it be seen in Spanish if possible, I waited until I could find a theater nearby that was showing it. I am estatic that I saw it in Spanish. It was an amazing treat to see it in the language that the characters would have spoken. The spanish language voice actors are all Mexican, giving the film it's final seal of authenticity that the english language is missing (though this is not a negative critique of the english language cast, but rather an extra treat of the spanish language version).
The film is a heartfelt tribute to the tradition of The Day of the Dead, part of the cultural heritage of Mexico and it's indigenous roots. The film shows the time and care the producers, writers and director took in staying true to and understanding this celebration as observed in Mexico, from the offerings to the dead, the significance of the vibrant marigolds, and the love and gathering with our ancestors and family.
Yes, Coco follows the tradition of all Pixar movies, with a focus on love, family and friendship. The difference this time is that it places Mexico, its culture and its people, at the center of the story.
After the hugely entertaining Force Awakens, Johnson is more keen to explore new territory than tread down familiar paths and what makes The Last Jedi so successful is not just that he is willing to subvert expectations that come with a Star Wars film, but also that he has a singular focus on developing all the central characters and it is this that makes this film so emotionally involving and gripping to watch. Johnson has picked up on the key story threads from the last entry, but unlike Episode VII which relied heavily on nostalgia and familiar scenarios, he has chosen to use his legacy characters to create a rich and thematically compelling entry into the saga that doesn’t simply rely on the audience’s nostalgia for previous films. It is to his credit that he has challenged not just the new characters but also the old, none more so than Luke, whose past and our awareness of it allows the filmmaker to contrast the nature of myth and legend with the reality of flawed character and all too human failure. Indeed, much of The Last Jedi’s central theme revolves around not just failure, but how each central character deals with it. Everyone from Luke to Hux experiences failure on some level during the film and Johnson is keen to explore each character’s central flaw, from Rey’s loneliness and need for a father figure/companion to Poe’s hot-headedness, and emphasise how each character develops as their flaw is exposed and challenged in some way. It makes for a fascinating film and for the first time since The Empire Strikes Back, there is palpable sense of tension that comes from a story moving into unfamiliar territory for every single character.
The performances across the board are strong and both Hamill and Fisher do some of their best work as Luke and Leia, without ever overshadowing the new characters. Indeed, every moment with Leia is tinged with sadness, given the cold reality of real life, but one of the many tragedies is that Fisher is no longer here to earn the plaudits for her performance that would have made her presence in Episode IX such an exciting prospect. Unfortunately it is not to be, but this is a wonderful note to go out on.
Like Force Awakens, there are some minor flaws - it’s one of the funniest Star Wars films, but the humour occasionally feels oddly anachronistic with the setting and classical nature of the series. Whilst the adventures of Finn and Rose on Canto Bight serve a purpose to expand on the themes of the film, they do feel extraneous and affect the pacing.
Perhaps the greatest flaw however that has been exposed by this film is in fact the central flaw of the entire sequel trilogy - the audience’s understandable desire to see Luke, Han and Leia again has ensured their happy ending from Return of the Jedi was inevitably going to be challenged and perhaps all of them would have been better utilised as legends to inspire the new. It is to the credit of both Abrams and Johnson that their inclusion has never felt wasted or betrayed, but as the saga inevitably moves beyond the past and embraces new characters, one can’t help feeling regret and sadness that the fairy tale nature of a happy ending has been exposed by age and inevitable death.
But that shouldn’t detract from a film that delivers everything one would hope for in a Star Wars film. It is the balance of old and new elements that Johnson has got spectacularly right, delivering the requisite moments of adventure, fun and spectacle, but at the same time delving into new territory that leaves the saga at an interesting turning point. As the film closes with an indelible image that will surely speak to every fan who grew up with a childhood dominated by the series, the mysteries of Episode VII may have largely been answered, but Episode IX is wide open and it’s anyone’s guess where the films will go. That is an exciting prospect.
Do you need to be a virgin to see this fucking clown?
-Richie Tozier
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the new measuring stick that all modern Stephen King adaptations should be held to. Is this a masterpiece worthy of acclaim akin to The Shining? Hell no. Does this feel like a "Stephen King Movie"? Oh hell yes. We can always hope for more masterpieces, but going forward when it comes to adapting King's work anything less than this shouldn't be acceptable.
After the stripped down and simplified version of The Dark Tower followed by the atrocious Mist TV Series (seriously it's garbage), 2017 was not looking good for Stephen King adaptations. Enter director Andy Muschietti who thankfully took over a project that was stuck in developmental hell and fought not only to get rid of elements that were never in the novel (no one wanted to see Henry Bowers fuck a sheep), but fought to add MORE material from the actual novel. We thank you Andy Muschietti.
It's not to say that nothing was changed from the book, but to my eyes most of the changes have logic behind it. First the moment they decided that the story was taking place in 1988/1989 instead of 1958/1959 some fundamental changes had to be made. While having The Werewolf, The Mummy and Frankenstein's Monster show up in the movie would have looked cool, it would no longer make any sense in the context of the film's new time period. To the film maker's credit though, they use the novel's established logic on why those monsters appear to create new threats for the kids while keeping the ones that would still make sense in the film's context.
Other changes were simply made to save time because even at 135 minutes the film still can't cover everything in the book (just the kids section that is). Unlike the 1990 mini-series though, instead of creating new locations like the sewer building pump house, the film combines locations from the book like the house on Neibolt Street.
Of all the changes from the book though, the one I wished had been handled differently was the character of Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs). In the novel he's an integral part of the story, but the changes made to his backstory and actions here completely diminish how important he is. I do understand the changes though. In the novel, just like the film, he only joins the "Loser's Club" later on in the story with most of his character development happening before he even meets them. That of course causes major problems for a film if one character out of the group spends most of the story away from them. This is something the 1990 mini-series struggled with as well. While I don't like the changes made for that particular character, I understand why it was done.
How did I like the film on it's own merits though? I loved it! The horror. The humor. The story. That cast! I loved these kids! I ended up seeing this at the drive-in as a double bill with Annabelle Creation and was surprised by how good the kids were in both these movies. Here the "Losers' Club" has come to life. Bill, Ben, Richie, Stan, Eddie, Bev and Mike are right there on the screen! Bill struggling to be brave and nobble beyond his years. Richie being just as god damn annoying as I imagined. Eddie trying not to turn into a hypochondriac. Ect, ect... It's going to be a lot of fun to see who gets cast in the sequel as the adult versions of these characters.
There's another slightly important cast member of course, Bill Skarsgård as the iconic Pennywise. Now remember when the first pic of him as Pennywise was released? While I didn't exactly shit all over it like a very vocal set of fans, I'll admit I didn't know what to make of it. I tried to stay positive telling myself that who knows how it would come off in the movie, but the pic looked silly. Turns out it was a great example not to judge something, even a picture of a character, when it's out of context from the movie. In the movie everything about Pennywise is spot on, from Skarsgård's portrayal to his entire look. It's one of the few instances where an iconic character is revisited by a different actor and it actually fucking works. Loved him in this. He might be the biggest highlight of a film that his loaded with highlights.
