Twilight becomes both much more funny and much more bearable when you are familiar with the genre and take it as the film equivalent of a shōjo manga or otome game, including all the same tropes. Under these criteria, it's actually a pretty fun movie.
Hot Take: If you can tolerate James Bond movies but this one somehow makes you feel weird, perhaps it's because you're more used to or more comfortable with male fantasies of sexual desirability. Either way, I used to hate Twilight because I felt superior to all the stupid girls who liked it. Now I just accept it for what it is: wish-fulfilment. Sure, Edward would be a creepy stalker and borderline abusive if not for story mechanics that tell us he can be trusted because he's a good guy, but that's the beauty of fiction: in real life there's no such thing as "good guys" and "bad guys," but in stories, there is. Similarly, James Bond would be a serial sexual harasser if not for the fact that all the women he encounters are super into him, but again, that's the beauty of fiction: they always are, and we know it's okay for him to be a dick sometimes because he is, you guessed it, a good guy. And yes, there's some weird puritan ideology here about the dangers of male sexuality, but that's still a hundred times better than for instance the subtext of Bram Stoker's Dracula (which, funnily enough, is about the dangers of female sexuality).
So, once more for the people in the back: Twilight is silly, implausible, and often ridiculous. And that's absolutely okay.
That being said, things I like about this film: the great way in which it captures teenage awkwardness (which I find hilarious and at this point have to believe is intentional); the fact that Bella just accepts he's a vampire because it's the most logical conclusion, and there's no drawn out "I can't believe this guy stopped a car with his bare hands, I'm going to tell everyone about it - oh no, no one believes me!"; the quotability of so much of the dialogue (coming close to the SW prequel trilogy in that department); the absolute dead-pan way in which everyone delivers their lines ("It's like diamonds. You're beautiful." - "Beautiful. This is the skin of a killer, Bella."); The way literally no one looks like they want to be there; the fact that Bella does not seem to be able to fully close her mouth; the implication that vegetarians are "never fully satisfied"; Seemingly endless scenes of piggyback rides (now I finally know why they never actually show how The Flash carries people - it just looks so fucking weird); the shot of Bella's father rolling his friend in the wheelchair right in front of the stairs leading up to his house, followed by a cut so that it's never explained how he actually got inside; the fact that Bella just seems absolutely chill with everything ("I don't sleep." - "Never?" - "No, never." - "Okay.").
Things I don't like about this film: how everyone takes it so goddamned seriously. Oh, and that there is absolutely no instance of "What are you?" - "A waitress."
[8.8/10] There’s a funny thing about these updated, transmogrified Shakespeare adaptations like 10 Things I Hate About You. If you didn’t know better, you could call the plots convoluted. There is a complicated web of relationships and deceptions, to the point that you practically need a diagram to explain it properly.
In short, Michael helps his friend Cameron woo Bianca by convincing Joey to pay Patrick to date Kat, because Bianca, per her father Mr. Stratford, cannot date until Kat does. With me? Well then, it turns out that Kat dated Joey, and after Bianca picks Cameron over Joey, Joey picks Bianca’s friend Chastity, while Michael pursues Kat’s friend Mandella, as Kat and Patrick’s tempestuous relationship takes root.
It’s a little dizzying, and yet the complex string of friends and enemies and relationships that tow the line between put-ons and genuine affection track nigh-perfectly into the high school setting. Despite the dense qualities of that big ball of string’s worth of plot threads, the complicated social structures and intersecting circles of high school make for the perfect way to realizes The Bard’s comedies in the modern day.
But 10 things is more than just a transmogrified version of The Taming of the Shrew. It also a charming tale that captures the heart and hazards of adolescence at the same time it exaggerates them for comic effect. What’s most impressive about the film is how it has its cake and eats it too on that front. There are goofy beats and subplots that only happen in teen movies, like unexpected party scenes and famous bands showing up to play contemporary (hopefully) chart-topping hits for the soundtrack.
But amid that broader material, there is a real examination of what it is to play up or down to expectation, a theme present in the work that inspired 10 Things, but which is given new life in the guise of the teenagers who are at that point in the fraught process of growing up where they’re deciding who and what they want to be, in love and in life. The gross wager that turns into real love is a hoary trope (see also: fellow 1990s borrower She’s All That) but by rooting the romance at the core of the film in two people who embrace a thorny image and find the hidden depths behind the prickers in one another, the film does justice to its source material and resonates with a target audience trying to figure out which parts of who they are malleable, which parts are non-negotiable, and which parts are fit to be broadcast to the rest of the world (or at least, the relevant social circles)>
It is also just damn charming. The film is full of quotable lines and crackerjack exchanges between characters. The cutting aside is wielded well and often, and side characters like teachers (including the great Allison Janney) and parents (Larry Miller, who nails both comedy and emotion as Mr. Stratford) provide a backdrop of colorful characters for the main story to flourish in. The writing stands out in 10 Things not just for the amusing lines which liven some otherwise familiar teen material, but for the way it allows the film to, in true Shakespeare form, shift tones into more serious material when it needs to.
The same goes for the characters. Kat shoots off the best zingers in the movie, and with her rebellious attitude and literary bent, it would be easy to turn her into a one-dimensional avatar rather than a character. Instead, the film roots her perspective and demeanor in an experience with Joey that gives form to her concerns of Bianca following in her footsteps, and gives just enough context to her mom leaving to make the crisis of conscience and turning point understandable.
By the same token, Bianca could easily be a generic popular girl, and in fairness, at certain points of the film, she is. But she too has a simple but meaningful arc of playing to expectations only to realize that she doesn’t necessarily like what that gets her, and it allows the two sisters to grow in their understanding of one another in strong scenes that deepen their relationship.
The objects of their affection receive a bit of shading as well. The reveal that Patrick, who puts on a gruff exterior and bears the reputation derived from many humorous urban legends about him, is not as wild as he seems is, perhaps, a predictable one. But he gains strength from the way that he and Kat see bits of themselves in one another, Cameron is a bit flatter, learning a trite if endearingly-put lesson about not accepting the notion that he doesn’t deserve what he wants, but there’s enough there to give ballast to the enjoyable-if-disposable teen romp elements.
Even Mr. Stratford, who is arguably the most outsized major character in the film, gets a bit of shading. While he spits out awkward-sounding nineties slang and is comically overprotective and paranoid of his daughters getting pregnant, the film balances that with a subtext to his insecurities about Kat leaving for Sarah Lawrence. There is a Daria-like quality to the film’s ability to poke fun at the parent-child relationship, but also find the sweetness and sincerity in it.
That’s what makes 10 Things more than the sum of its byzantine bets and love triangles. Some twists are convenient, some gestures a little too big to work anywhere but on the silver screen, and some bits of forgiveness come a little too easy. Still, the film keeps its plot, humor, and drama working in sync, where one scene can make you chuckle, the next will let you get to know a character a little better, and the one after will tug at your heartstrings, just a little bit.
The oh-so-nineties soundtrack immediately places in the film at a specific moment in time, but it speaks to the relatable qualities of that quest to figure out both who you are, and who’ll accept you for who you are, that feel like life and death for all seventeen-year-olds. 10 Things is a touchstone for those who grew up with it, both for the quips and clever asides that let the film crackle, and for the notion of young men and women, cutting through pretension and presentation, and finding something true beneath it, in themselves and in the people they love.
Poor Things is very pretty, I’ll give it that much. Colors pop, and the watercolor, blurry sky and the scaling but condensed environments of Lisbon and Alexandria both convey the miasma of Bella’s mind quite well. How the background blurs in our young memories and how we remember all the buildings and places that looked large over us but so rarely the walks to them. Those work for me. So much of the rest of the film doesn’t.
I see what it’s going for- it’s hard not to. A journey of womanhood through the conceit of a child’s brain in a woman’s body, when women are treated as children and property to begin with. But it’s so fucking weird, with that conceit, to devote so much time to sex. Sex is an important part of being human for many people, I’m not denying that. But the attention it gets here throughout compared to brief, paltry scenes of Bella reading, seeking knowledge, having an interest in medical science and surgery is disproportional. Especially when the film wants to play her coming home and following in Godwin’s footstep as a culmination of her journey when it’s a facet of the film that barely gets any play in comparison. Angelica Jade Bastien, whose Variety review you should all read, brings up how in a film ostensibly about a cis woman and her relationship with her body menstruation does not come up once. It’s so telling where the film’s true focus lies.
And yes, sex can be beautiful, and conversely so can sex scenes. But the ones here are done dispassionately yet voyueristically. There’s no interiority, no sensuality, no sense of emotion and character felt through them. Compared to films like The Handmaiden they are sterile in heart if not content. It’s a big swing to go from black and white to color, and I can see sex being the impetus for it, sure, but when it’s done like this I don’t buy it. It’s interesting to me that her first time having sex is portrayed like this, with penetration until the man comes, thrice over, and yet her first time with cunnilingus is off screen. I feel like all the sex in this film is similarly narrow and lifeless.
None of what this film is trying to say is new, but much of it is muddled. It wants to rail against the entitlement of men, how they see women as property, how they want them to be exciting and adventurous but only in service of them. And yet it gives Max no grief at all for falling in love with. A child. Literal child, this is not a metaphor, it’s a child’s brain. And marrying her but refusing to have sex with her until marriage because that would be taking advantage, as if marriage would not be taking advantage and has not been used as the ultimate control. On some level the film condemns this, but only in the opposite direction, as part of Emily leaving Max is her frustration over not having sex. It’s baffling that the film seems to take the viewpoint that we ought to let children consent to sex with adults, that it is part of their development and journey to personhood. The film is similarly forgiving to Godwin, who used a woman’s body in a way she would very likely not have consented to all while the film extols a woman’s choice and ownership of her body.
Everything the film has to say about the nature of man and people, about women’s place in society, about sex work, etc, is rote. Nothing here is new, and nothing is heightened by the core conceit. It’s so surface level. And the cast is game enough. Dafoe is Dafoe and that’s always a good time, but I wouldn’t call this one of his greatest roles. Carmichael, much as I love his standup, just is not working here. Stone and Ruffalo are acting for the back seats, and while that has its moments of charm, it’s too much for most of the runtime. And Stone is just. She’s playing into ableist stereotypes for so much of this performance. The film drops the r slur and we’re just gonna pretend that Stone isn’t doing an insulting caricature at the same time? I don’t even want to delve into all the questions raised by the mental disability angle, others could do that better than me, but it’s another level of thoughtlessness and surface level depth.
The score is similarly cloying and overbearing. It insists on a scene rather than being a part of it. It doesn’t enhance it or complement it, it beats you over the head with how the scene is meant to make you feel. I could enjoy the sound of it in isolation, but as a score it’s distracting more than anything else. It’s a bit surprising to me how much this film has been praised as outside of the production design, I don’t see it. I just don’t. For me, this is as much a misfire as Barbie, if not more. Poor things.
This movie shows in a very good way how the next virus outbreak that will be just as big or maybe even bigger as the Spanish Flu is gonna happen in the 21th century. And believe me, sooner or later IT WILL HAPPEN.
I liked the electronic music that was playing at the beginning of the movie. It had sort of an panicked tone to it that together with the people who where getting sick and dying set a thrilling tone to the first part of the movie.
I found the movie to be very realistic. Jude Law character was spot-on. When there is gonna be an outbreak we will see people on the internet (who have no medical training whatsoever) who think they have found the cure and millions of people will listen to them. There will be millions of people who stop going to work, who stay at home and avoid contact with anyone. Others will do whatever they can to get their hands on a vaccination, even if that means killing someone else.
I liked the fact that we got to see the story from so many different angles. It really gave an overview of the entire situation and what the virus had for an impact on all the people involved.
The end of the movie was a bit disappointing. In my opinion that could have been a lot better. But overall i find this movie to be really good.
I can say straight up this will not be a movie for everyone, but it really clicked for me. I would also say a blind watch is preferable in movies like this, I went in knowing almost nothing and if possible I think that's the way to watch the movie if possible.
For me it was incredibly immersive once established, with incredible sound design and score. The slow build of tension, unease and dread as things unfold. I'll admit, I've always been a fan of mediums that give the viewer the same amount of knowledge of whats going on as the characters have, and this nails that.
The premise has a whole has been done many times before, including this years Knock at the Cabin, but I've not seen that or read the book it was based on. But in relation to the other similar films, this takes the top spot for me.
While the ending itself is probably the weakest part of the movie for me personally because it answers just slightly too many questions a little bit too easily, the journey to get there was still worth the time and I think the ending might still work for others.
Blade Runner is one of the more gaping holes in the list of films I haven’t seen (or at least, don’t remember well enough to talk about). Yesterday’s viewing of The Martian got me thinking about Ridley Scott’s past work so here I am.
I really should have done this sooner.
L.A. 2019, Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is a ‘Blade Runner’ - a policeman whose sole purpose is to hunt and kill replicants; machines almost indistinguishable from humans, yet banned from Earth. Four have been detected on the planet so he is called up to hunt and kill them.
Scott’s dystopian LA draws you in and holds you captive for 2 hours. This is a masterfully shot, timeless, beautiful piece of work. Every single frame is a work of art. The visual effects are not only highly effective, but incredibly creative and unique; never has anything like this been made before or since.
The plot is simple, one man chases another. However it’s driven almost entirely by its central themes; what is it to be human? Who deserves to live or die? Are we responsible for the things we create? What happens when our creations surpass us? All of these questions go unanswered, yet Scott somehow revels in the ambiguity.
Decker is a blank canvas of a character. The replicants he is chasing are complex, unique individuals. It’s no accident that Rutger Hauer plays the most human character in the film. His is the stand-out performance here, if only for the closing monologue.
Still fresh & still relevant, Blade Runner is indeed a modern masterpiece.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2015/10/31/bladerunner/
Spider-Man : No Way Home
The movie is objectively wonderful for those who love superhero movies and Marvel movies. Fantastic special effects (it was to be expected from a company like the MCU), the crossover between the 3 spiderman, Octopus and Goblin (played by the fantastic William Dafoe) are spectacular, the ending with a logical sense, the death of the aunt etc.
But personally, I didn't find it that good for two reasons mainly :
1) I am not a lover of superhero movies.
2) Too much hype was created by the rumors about Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire's appearances, and this ruined the surprise of seeing them in the movie. Can you imagine if these rumors would have never appeared in the various newspapers, how it would have been much nicer to see the 2 Spider-Man of the other universes appearing like that, from that portal? It would have been fantastic, it would surely be among the greatest twists of the Marvel Universe.... But unfortunately it was not so.
Summing up, the movie is wonderful for lovers of marvel movies, probably one of the best ever created by the MCU, but subjectively, the whole thing was ruined by the newspapers and the various rumors. .I still found it to be a cute and enjoyable movie.
6/10
Over the last two weeks I re-watched all 8 previous Spider-Man films in preparation for this one. That's Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire's trilogy, Amazing Spider-Man 1 & 2 with Andrew Garfield, Homecoming/Far From Home with Tom Holland, and finally Into the Spider-Verse. It was quite the marathon and having just gotten out of the theater from seeing No Way Home I can now confidently say that it was totally worth it. However, I will note that Into the Spider-Verse was not directly referenced, with only a very minor line of dialogue that could be considered an indirect shoutout, so if you're also considering going back to do some re-watching you can probably skip that one (although it's still fantastic and well worth a watch). As one final side note, for the last five or so years I have gone out of my way to avoid trailers. I think this always results in a better film going experience, but in this case I think it was a particularly beneficial decision, as I was genuinely surprised by characters/scenes that were undoubtedly spoiled in the trailers.
So... No Way Home. This is kind of a tough movie to rate because it is very much a mixed bag. It hits some home runs in certain areas, but there are some elements that fail to live up to the strength of Homecoming and Far From Home.
THE BAD: The instigating event with Dr. Strange (memory erase/obliviate spell) is a tonally weird scene. What ultimately turns into a crucial/deadly mistake is played as an extended joke, which was a bit off putting. In general, the humor has more misses than the previous films. Still plenty of hits, but just not quite as high of a percentage. Some of the emotional beats and dialogue feel more ham-fisted than I'd like. The pacing felt a bit off, with numerous scenes that seemed to drag unnecessarily. Some of that probably has to do with the need to establish a lot of new (or rather old) characters, which leads to lots of extended dialogue sequences. I feel like an extra action sequence or at least some trimming here and there could have been beneficial. Finally, I was very disappointed/frustrated with the post-credits scene. In fact, to even call it a post-credits scene is disingenuous. It was literally a trailer for the next MCU movie, which is not how post-credits scenes have typically been used and I definitely prefer them to be self-contained scenes rather than montages/clips from a future film (especially considering the fact that I avoid trailers).
THE GOOD: I recently wrote a review praising Into the Spider-Verse for successfully bringing the interdimensional antics of comic book storytelling to the big screen, so when this film attempts that same premise in live action, without the benefits and limitless possibilities of animated storytelling, it is frankly even more ambitious/impressive. And, despite all of my critiques, this film succeeds in that attempt. This is peak fan service. The callbacks. The cameos. The costumes. It's all there, and as an audience member all I could do is smile. The plot isn't anything to write home about, but it gets the job done in terms of setting up all of the types of big payoff moments that we were all hoping for. The highlights for me (all of which were big surprises) were definitely Charlie Cox's return as Matt Murdock/Daredevil, the reveal of Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire, and Andrew Garfield's dive to save MJ, giving him a chance to prevent a fellow Peter Parker from experiencing the same loss he did.
All things considered, this is a must watch for any Marvel/Spider-Man fan, and a solid enough film on its own merits, although perhaps not quite as well rounded as Tom Holland's previous two outings as the webslinger.
I think that finally all the inconsistency that this movie had does not matter. It doesn't matter that some villains are there and others are not, that the spell does not make sense, nothing deserves to be explained. And it is not necessary. Perhaps the only thing that matters is that the power that Marvel has to hoard every movie theather, and that in Peru, for example, they have violated their seat separation protocols, that they are charging more to see this movie, even in its third week, without being possible to have discounts on tickets (when even movies in their first week of release have). You might say that all this is external to the film, of course. But if Spiderman: No Way Home references things external to this movie all the time (not just the past Spiderman movies, but even the meta commentary on those movies, which comes from how silly they are to every line from Jaime Foxx about how he is more comfortable in this one). When the film takes us out of its narrative with all this, I think it is allowed that I too can get out of it to think about all this external that I have commented.
This is just one side, of course, and I'm sure I'm being mean or a smartass, sure. Even without all this, the movie should at least be entertaining. Of course, for some, that are so tired and I understand it, entertainment equals quality, "I had fun, ergo it's good." OK. But understand that there are thousands of ways to entertain yourself with a movie, to have fun. It happens with bad movies, The Room, for example, but it happens with the experience of going to the cinema as well (I think of the scene in which Jerry Seinfeld wants to go to see Planet 9 From Outer Space, but not alone, because otherwise it would not be entertaining ). I'm not asking Seinfeld to rate the film, but we are on Rate Your Music, we have to rate. I understand that some have fun with mediocre films, I think that to a greater or lesser extent we have all found ways to do it, but there are some that we can separate that: I surely entertained myself, maybe hate-watching Spiderman: No Way Home, and although I know what to expect with hese films, I think one of the highest grossing films of all time should have at least a clean script (I really wouldn't ask for more than that). I can't lower my standards, and that's okay, I'm not making my life miserable, I'm having fun in my own way (don't pity me poor me). But this fun, at least for me (and that is what many fail to understand) is beyond the fact that the film seems coherent to me.
Even so I found my way of making my experience watching Spiderman: No Way Home interesting, maybe egocentrical, and entertaining. This movie is by no means fun. The first two were okay, fine. Now they say this is stupid or that it embraces stupidity. Okay, but at the same time they are trying to sell us a conflicting Spiderman, who instead of going to chase the Green Goblin, prefers to tell the public that he wants to kill him. A Spiderman that almost acknowledges that he is in a film and knowing what's gonna happen next (he ask is Dr. Octopus knows him, because he called him by name, but everybody knows he is Peter Parker; he doesn't think there are new villains, he thinks something weird is going on). The downside this time around is that the show feels overly plastic, and that wouldn't be a problem if the movie wasn't trying to sell us the Spiderman drama.
And this is my way of having fun, you can't accuse me of being no fun. Okay, you can accuse me of being a cynical fuck, yes. But this is fun. And it's also depressing, of course. Is laughing to avoid crying.
If I want to say something good... well, maybe at least we have Daredevil on the MCU (but they are definitely not gonna reach the series highs, hell, not even the lows... How the fuck can you introduce him and get rid of him right away, there is a trial that we needed a lot more of, that should've been its own half an hour. And even when introduced you just skip all the good parts, how can Daredevil catching that ball be in screen for just a instant, don't you know how to zoom in, make momentum, fuck).
Okay, maybe it is good that Spiderman is kind of restarted now. I'll keep on wanting a better film out of this Spiderman. And I'll have fun while doing it.
Final thought: I liked the bromance, seeing old friends and foes, there was a nice emotional coating and bond after the final battle and in the aftermath - still I believe the premises were forced, there's no real redemption for the 5Foes nor actual spaced growth for Peter1 after the central Uncle-Ben-ish traumatic event.
It was too much counting on our love for the Tom Holland's Spidey family and the old ones, tapping into nostalgia serving us audience. Which I like in the balance they've kept till now in the MCU, but this feels excessive at the expenses of the plot.
p.s. Dani Rojas has a weirdly different career in this universe
If this film is a cake, then it’s got the best possible frosting you could wish for. The cake itself, however, isn’t great.
I’ve always had a strange relationship with these films. I don’t really care for the Raimi films (I think they’re overly cheesy, poorly acted and dated, though don’t expect anyone from around my age to admit that), the Webb films are fine (really like the first one, second one’s a mess) and I’ve really liked the 2 recent ones (not as much as Into the Spiderverse, but still good in their own right).
Compared to the previous 2, this one pretty much ditches the John Hughes aesthetic as it goes along, and it goes into full on, operatic superhero mode.
Unfortunately, it is another one of those project that puts nostalgia and fan pandering over story and character, the kind of blockbuster we’re seeing over and over again in a post Force Awakens world.
This story is completely hacked together, consisting of so many contrivances, conveniences and established characters acting out of character that it becomes a bit of a shitshow ( Doctor Strange, a genius, is being tricked by teenagers; Peter not knowing about the consequences of the spell is a very forced way to set the plot in motion; Ned being able to open portals is quite ridiculous when the Doctor Strange movie made a point about how hard that is to learn; why is Venom in the universe given how they set up the rules of the multiverse, and the list goes on ). The problem is that they needed to take that bullet in order to make the film they wanted to make here (or rather, the film fans wanted to see), but that doesn’t make it the right choice by any means, because it leads to a nonsensical film with a rushed pace.
Look, you can nitpick this film to death ( why would a university publicly admit that MJ and Ned are rejected because of their connection to Peter? ), but that’s not even my point. It’s heightened and not meant to be taken that seriously, I get that, but you at least need some form of internal logic, you cannot just do these unearned things because the plot demands it.
It’s not all bad though, Holland’s Spider-man still has a very good arc with some great emotional beats in it, and they make some very bold choices towards the end that I hope they stick with. It’s very similar to the first Fantastic Beasts, so I hope they don’t pull a Crimes of Grindelwald by retconning everything .
The acting is great, Holland and Zendaya give their best and most mature performances yet, and the villains are all good. I really like that they toned Dafoe down a little bit.
It looks fine. It has some of the best cinematography out of the trilogy, but some of the action looks very animated (again, stop touching up the suit, just let it wrinkle ffs) and unfinished, which is probably because this thing was rushed out, as we know.
For instance, there are some really wonky shots in the scene where Spider-Man fights Doctor Strange, the close-ups with Benedict Cumberbatch look like a weather forecast on television.
The references to the previous incarnations are a bit of a mixed bag. I like that they progressed some stuff and did interesting things with the things they referenced ( for example, you really feel like time has passed with Tobey and Andrew, they’re not giving a copy of their original performances, which is also a great excuse to tone down the awkwardness and lack of personality in Tobey’s version. Also, the banter between them is very nice, of course ), but most of it plays like a pandering greatest hits compilation. I don't need Dafoe to say you know, I'm something of a scientist myself again, it is nothing but a cheap attempt to trigger my nostalgia button.
Finally, it also has some of the worst tonal balance and comedy out of the trilogy, especially with some of the lines that are given to Benedict Cumberbatch.
5/10
In summary/TLDR: great idea for Sony’s bank account, but the seeds for this needed to be planted much earlier in order to make it a good film.
This is an honest, spoiler-free review coming from your average fan (not a critic):
I just saw this new marvel film, and I have to say... it's no where near as bad as the critics make it out to be.
Yes there is a lot of dialogue. But it gives the characters a chance to shine and for scenes to breathe.
People call this film dense. I would disagree. Yes there is a fair bit of plot and history told, however I would say that other mcu films have simply much simpler plotlines most of the time.
There are moments when things are just about to become exciting, and then it is interrupted with more dialogue which instantly kills the suspension.
There are a number of plot twists in this film, and some unexpected things happen that I wouldn't have seen coming.
This film has a slow burn, but sometimes that's a good thing. Would I have liked more action? Yes. Was I unhappy with the action we do get? No.
I will admit, going into this film I was expecting a masterpiece, and while I wouldn't quite call it that, its definitely a well-made film, marvel or not.
Oh. And expect to have to do some reading at the very beginning. Kinda reminds me of a classic Star Wars opening crawl.
"Such a poser."</b
Every time I will be watching another Marvel film with Natasha Romanoff I can not think of her other than a poser. Thanks Yelena!
Anyway, Florence Pugh rocked this one. Hopefully she will be heard of again soon in the MCU! I enjoyed what they were going for and loved all of the banter. Scarlett Johansson again did a great job as Natasha and I'm said this will be our last showing of her but her story-line is complete and Florence Pugh showed us she's more than capable to take over the Black Widow mantel. The action was solid and I liked the car/motor-chase. Cate Shortland really did a solid job because for the entire runtime I was never bored for a second.
But! I do not like what they did with Taskmaster. There was so much for to get out of this. Which for me, took the movie down a notch. It's not that I hated it but it didn't feel right. And before I forgot damn, what did they try to do with that Nirvana cover? DAAAAMN.
Anyway, if you are into the Marvel Cinematic Universe you will not be bored. Really interested how they'll build up Phase 4.
Normally, I'd have a whole much of stuff to say... but this time, I just can't. The whole tone of the movie, especially after seeing the recent string of miniseries, felt kind of underwhelming. The plot had potential though. The plot wasn't the issue. Scarlett Johansson and Florence Pugh's chemistry fit pretty well together. I feel like other people didn't care for David Harbour, but I get what they were going for and I think they did reasonably well but definitely could have been better. I can't even blame him. The whole movie felt more like a Bourne film than a Marvel film.
The VFX were pretty bad.. like CW DC show bad. If you have even an amateur level of 3D rendering experience, you'll be able to spot every little thing that is CG. Every car, vehicle, or backdrop that isn't actually there stands out like a sore thumb. Incorrect lighting, overly reflective, just.. amateur AF..
On to the spoilery stuff...
First and foremost... I don't know who did it.. I don't know who approved it.. but this movie has committed an atrocity almost as egregious as Fox screwing up Deadpool in X-men Origins or Sony with Venom in the third Spiderman movie. They completely ruined what I assume was supposed to be Taskmaster. I don't even mind that they made Taskmaster a woman. If that was all they did, it'd have been perfectly fine, but they turned the character into a gimmick that got thrown aside and left to the unknown by the end instead of the badass higher level villain they could/should have been. Sure, they said they were taking her with them but.. that didn't get explained either.
I feel like they fell short on establishing a timeline. The movie starts out in the past, in.. 1995 I believe? and things jump forward and it took me a hot minute to figure out why the hell she was running.. Maybe I missed some text saying that it was post Civil War/pre Endgame. If I did, then that's my own fault but it honestly would have only been because I had such a difficult time focusing on the movie.
The entire movie feels more like an afterthought than an origin story. Loose ends galore. This movie was delay but still somehow felt rushed.
It’s hard to write a review for this film without any major spoilers, so this might seem a little vague here and there. There will be very minor spoilers, primarily what’s revealed in the opening text crawl or the trailers, so not much, but if you want to go into this film completely virgin, stop here.
The film starts off with things already underway. A transmission has been sent out that contains the voice of Emperor Palpatine. Kylo Ren, now Supreme Leader of the First Order, goes to seek out Palpatine as a potential threat to his power. In the meantime, the Resistance is still in shambles after the events of “The Last Jedi,” and they are busy doing scouting missions and regrouping.
All of this is revealed in the opening crawl of the movie, which is where the problems begin. It violates a cardinal rule of storytelling: Show, don’t tell. It wouldn’t have taken much to have this done on screen in more dramatic and effective fashion. Instead, this has the effect of making it feel like we either missed something important or that we’re watching an entirely different movie with a different story. This makes things confusing. It doesn’t help that I was already thinking that J.J. Abrams probably needs to go back to Screenwriting 101 during the opening crawl. Not a good way to start.
Other things happen during the course of the movie that make no sense. Why does Kylo Ren reforge his helmet? We never really find that out. He just does. The Knights of Ren do appear in this film finally. Who are they? If you’re expecting an answer of any kind, you’ll be disappointed. Why is there this strange connection between Rey and Kylo Ren? One of the mysteries of the Force, I suppose. Characters who we don’t know appear from nowhere having been significant to the goings on even though we’ve never seen them before. Other characters take bizarre and up to now not even hints at character arcs. It becomes a horrendously confusing mess.
I liked some of the more controversial aspects of “The Last Jedi.” Rey being a nobody with no significant parentage? Great idea! The galaxy is a big place. Why does everyone have to be related? Well, this is adjusted slightly. I won’t go into details, but it was disappointing what they did, in my opinion. Leia’s story arc in this film is...weird. I’m going to allow that it’s due to the loss of Carrie Fisher and having to use archival footage (one scene that shows a young Luke and Leia using computer effects is freaky at best). But it’s off-putting and feels tacked on for convenience. It was nice to see Lando return, although even that felt more like throwing a bone to the fans. He could have potentially been replaced by any character with flying skills. Speaking of such, Wedge does make finally make an appearance, but it’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment.
Here’s how I would sum it up spoiler-free: As I said, I liked “The Last Jedi” a lot, including parts that many didn’t like or found weird as I stated above, but at the same time it was not a problem-free movie for me. “The Rise of Skywalker” is the exact opposite. It definitely has some really cool moments, but feels so sloppy and makes so many storytelling mistakes that, on the whole, I have to say that it’s a bad movie. I’ve said this about just about everything I’ve seen come from J.J. Abrams, that he’s great at coming up with interesting imagery. He gets these pictures in his head of something that would be really interesting to see on film, like flashes one might remember from a dream. For example, there’s a great scene near the end that finally corrects what many consider a great injustice done in an earlier movie. But couching these images in a cohesive story is not his strong suit. In fact, he’s downright terrible at it. This problem seemed to be going in full force in “The Rise of Skywalker.”
Were some of my complaints addressed in some expanded material? I don’t know, but even if they were it would still make it bad storytelling. Star Wars has always been fairly good about keeping things self-contained. Expanded material adds extra background to enhance the enjoyment of the main material, like adding seasoning, but shouldn’t be necessary to appreciate the meal.
Overall, you need to see this movie to close out the Skywalker Saga, but that’s really the only reason. Don’t go into this expecting a good or even decent film, or for every question to be answered. Ultimately, it’s a disappointing end to Star Wars, and I say this as a Star Wars fan.
This is a huge course correction that practically negates TLJ. It has its moments, and given what the director-writer had to work with, it's understandable how it ends with such a feeble whimper. This isn't a good film and shouldn't be mistaken for one. TROS is a very disjointed, clearly rushed, derivative experience, that shows its editorial seams, packed with callbacks to all the good things the original trilogy had to offer in order to make you up for it. The visual effects are quite good in most places (nothing stunning or eye opening), but some in the third act are not really at par with the rest of the movie. The plot could be written up with a crayon in a napkin, and I wouldn't be amazed if that was the case, as this isn't Citizen Kane. The amount of loose ends and plot holes this film has, are way too many to me. This is a $300 million plus film (without accounting for marketing, re-shoots and extra CGI) and yet, it doesn't feel as good on the screen as Infinity War or End Game, (very good films made by the same Disney company). After leaving the theater, I was not full of hope, sad or willing to buy another ticket or even willing to watch this movie ever again. I felt nothing but sorry for George Lucas and couldn't care any less about what happens to Ben, Finn, Poe and Rey. The problem with this film when compared with any of the original trilogy is that those felt timeless (grounded on mythical archetypes, Japanese samurai films, Westerns, Flash Gordon serials and the hero's journey) and this plot will look very dated by next year, I'm sure of it. Luke Skywalker took 5 years to master the arts of the Jedi, having two Jedi masters to introduce him to its philosophy. Rey has some old books and voices in his head to kinda learn in months a lot of fantastic new Jedi powers that made no sense. No matter how much it makes back at the box office, it will lose in long-term repeated viewings (one time is enough for me), Blu-ray and DVD sales, and of course, merchandise. It is a good thing we have The Mandalorian to keep the franchise in life support until the inevitable reboot comes along in 5 years. Edit: Forgot to mention that there were only 9 people on the first IMAX showing of TROS on this movie theater (this is a 3.5 million people city). Back in 2015, all the showings were packed for TFA the first 4 days.
I thought the movie really underdeveloped the world, and didn't take advantage of all of the cool possibilities. Other than The Shining none of the references had any impact. Mark Rylance was the only actor to make an impression. I didn't even like the narrative of the book that much but I thought Stephen Spielberg would improve it not make it worse. The plot holes were huge especially in the third act ( How did Art3mis just walk into his office, walk out without anyone seeing or hearing her, and just walk out of the IOI headquarters ). It felt like a lot was cut for time, or they spent so much time on CGI sequences they forgot to make anything real, but what they cut were the parts that made the book interesting. You could ignore Ernest Cline's narrative and plot struggles because he made the characters slightly interesting, the challenge seemed difficult and all encompassing, and a lot of the references were actually relevant to the story. Every time they got a key it was a huge deal in the book, here I totally forgot it even mattered because it was so glossed over even from the beginning ( Really a race? ) and the real world consequences also didn't matter, so the whole thing felt like it was hitting the classic sentimental Spielberg movie moments with nothing to back it up.
Let me start this off by saying that this sequel did not feel outside of what we remember.
Blade Runner 2049 maintains the mood and feel of its predecessor. The visuals, the sound... the dystopian future, it's all there.
| FIRST THOUGHT |
I love writing reviews, it comes somewhat naturally to me after watching something that I learn to feel passionate about.
This movie taught me to be passionate.
But... it's really hard for me to express judgment. And I'm going to explain why:
Actually, it's very simple. This was a 3 hours movie. Of these 3 hours, 2 were simply... air. Now, don't get me wrong, that isn't always negative, like in this case. It was refreshing air, but still... it doesn't (at first glance) hold anything on the plot.
Because of this, the viewer (me at least), is left with a lot of questions, the picture doesn't explain itself. Also; as a side note - you most definitely need to watch the first one. The great majority of the runtime is inexplicably useless.
The longer it goes, the longer it begins to add new stuff, and then some, then it seems somehow related to what's actually going on, but right after it deviates the actual story on an ideal from the characters involved, that at a certain point, evaporates. I'm really conflicted about this because it looks to me like the screenwriters and director wanted to leave all of this to theory and the fans.
Why is this confusing? Because it's a very strange mixture of linear narrative and non-linear narrative. One is focussed on one objective, the other starts a bunch of other objectives and then it simply dies. No explanation was given, no closure was given.
And this is aggravated by the fact that it's a 3 hours movie, of which 1 hour of the actual story is spread and mixed amongst 2 hours of absolutely nothing. VISUALLY IMPRESSIVE NOTHING. A VERY INTERESTING BUNCH OF LITERAL VOID.
This is actually the only thing I did not like about the movie. Which, again, if you are like me and enjoy movies that aren't patently explaining themselves, it's not a bad thing. I just feel like it could've been much more interesting if they explained somehow what happened to all the side characters, or just cut them out.
|STORY & ACTORS |
Aside from what I've mentioned before, the more "linear" part of the story is actually not that bad. It's nothing impressive. A part of what I said earlier connects to the fact that this movie constantly keeps juggling between what is real and what is not. Be it by robots, or actual reality that the characters are living. So it came out pretty obvious that the movie would have a twist at some point, somewhere. I will admit that I did not get it until the very end, so, don't be discouraged.
Ryan Gosling was great, also because he as an actor was perfect for his role. Being so that he has this way of being and looking conflicted, and so it portrayed really well on the protagonist.
Harrison Ford had less value to this movie than he did in the last Star Wars.
Jared Leto's character is a mystery to me, but he did a phenomenal job talking random shit.
All of the other actors, Jared Leto included, were there to push the story forward (or to add random bullshit) and that's it. They did a fantastic job, but unfortunately, as mentioned above, at first glance it looks like they don't mean shit.
| CINEMATOGRAPHY |
The movie is visually pleasing, it's bliss for people with OCD. It's perfectly round and at the same time perfectly square. It keeps smooth lines combining great color combinations in the palette, and utilizing great solid colors at the same time.
As I said before it holds perfectly a spot near its predecessor, the mood and feel are almost identical. (Having watched the first one only an hour before going to the theater to watch this one)
I have to say, this one looks A LOT, like A FUCKING GIGAZILLION LOT more gruesome and splatter than the first one. The fighting scenes are brutal, they do not go into dramatic effects, they just are what they should be. A punch in the face, exploding heads and blood.
There is no doubt that this movie looks fucking amazing.
It sounds amazing as well. It has a collection of deep, pure sounds. There is not a lot of music, but when there is it's powerful and present and it makes you wake up and amaze. Same goes for the special audio effects: I have watched it in ATMOS and I have to admit, they did not utilize it at all, except for one scene later in the movie, but the way it goes from absolute silence to seat trembling sensations it's really amazing. The sounds were so powerful I could literally see the movie screen shake and the subwoofer hit made the whole room shake.
I would also like to add that in the Italian version, you can clearly see that they used "incorrect" words grammatically, they used a lot of anglicisms, I guess they've done that to express how language is evolving? It's actually current of our generation, I see a lot of people adapting English words in Italian, so I was very impressed by that.
| FINAL THOUGHT |
I feel like everyone needs to understand, before watching this movie, that you need a time, a mood and a place perfectly fit to sit for a 3 hours movie that it's going to feel like a 6-hour long journey into colors, shapes, and absolute "living" silence.
This is NOT a Marvel movie, there is action, well-done action, but it's not about action. You need to sit, relax and don't think about time, because, trust me, it's going to fuck you.
Please like my comment if you enjoyed my review, it makes me really happy.
Note that all of this is driven by my personal opinion. If you think I wasn't objective in some of the parts of what I've written, you're welcome to make me notice where.
On Twitter, I review the entire world -> @WiseMMO
There are plenty of reviews of this film, so here are a few spoiler free heartfelt words of my own, which I hope will help those decide to watch this movie, without worry...
It has been 24 hours since watching the 'Blade Runner' sequel and I still have the same feeling of utter joy as I did walking out of the cinema yesterday. I was so happy that I actually cried, because after 35 years I had finally found my perfect score 10/10 movie. When you see a film that affects you so emotionally that you have tears rolling down your cheeks, then I believe you are witnessing something very special indeed.
True, I am probably biased. The original 1982 'Blade Runner' is my second favourite film of all time - a cult classic that made Ridley Scott in to one of the most respected film makers alive today. The sheer wealth of ideas, the photography, the visual special effects, the sets, the tension, the story, the music and the acting all come together with a passion that, for me, was film making at its' finest.
Hence, when I heard that a sequel was planned, my heart sank. Please, leave it alone, I thought. However, my reservations were slowly pushed away when I heard that most of the team that made the original were on-board to make the sequel. Then, after it was announced that Denis Villeneuve was directing, my confidence grew even more. Alright, let me keep my fingers crossed and believe... which was literally how I was in the cinema yesterday. The lights went down, the music started and...
...within 2 minutes I had goose bumps on my arms and I knew it was going to be fine.
I am here to tell you now that this movie delivers on every level. The pedestal was very high indeed and everyone involved with this sequel should be extremely proud with what they have achieved.
'Blade Runner 2049' is respectful, powerful and smart. The director knew he had a tall order and he manages to bring his style to the next level, creating a science fiction masterpiece.
There were moments when I did not blink for fear of missing something, moments when I was gripping my hand with tension, moments of utter wonder at the visuals, moments of shock and moments of surprise. I was pulled in to this movie like no other I have seen and the 3 hours it lasted was no hardship at all for me... in fact, I didn't want it to end.
Granted, I was sitting in the best seat in the one of the best cinema's in the UK with IMAX and it really helped to literally immerse you in the film. The quality of the picture was simply stunning and the sound was ground shaking without any distortion... and 'Blade Runner 2049' deserves the best possible screen and audio you can buy.
This movie has been crafted with love and skill.
This movie was worth the 35 years wait.
This movie is the sequel we all wanted and hoped for.
This movie is a perfect 10/10 for me and I hope that you all enjoy it as much as I did and will do, again and again.
"I always told you. You're special. Your history isn't over yet. There's still a page left."
If you take this movie for what it is, an action / science fiction movie with emphasis on fiction, then it is, in my opinion, actually not too bad.
The movie starts of with the usual suspects, a bunch of political asswipes setting off to create their, equally usual, clusterfuck firing the one competent person they actually needed to run the climate control project successfully. To make matters worse the entire project are about to be turned over to “the international community” which of course is a well known recipe for disaster.
Hollywood lives in their usual dream world of course so they throw in suitable, old-fashioned, bad guy with the “correct” political views for a bad guy and with an outrageous and apocalyptic plan and we are all set.
Let’s ignore all that crap and focus on the movie. Once that nonsense is out of the way what is left is a fairly entertaining science fiction disaster thriller movie. The special effects are not bad and the movie moves along at a decent pace. The “raison de etre” for this movie is the action and the special effects so the story and the acting is adequate and nothing more.
Unfortunately, as is all too often the case, the story writer is a bit of a low watt bulb. This satellite network that is the foundation of the movie is fairly unrealistic even for a science fiction movie. Let’s forget about the total insanity in even trying to cover the planet in a network of satellites that are actually physically connected, the feats that these satellites achieve is just so far off the realism scale that is is annoying. What the heck are powering them? Anti-matter, black holes? This could have been done much better.
Then we have the self destruct sequence that is playing a large part towards the end of the movie. What kind of fucking self destruct blows up a few bits and pieces for show and then pauses so the characters can run around for half an hour or so? Either the story writer is dumb as a door nail or he thinks the audience is that dumb.
Anyway, the annoying parts aside, as a science fiction and fantasy geek this was a fairly entertaining movie for me.
One of the best parts about Highlander is how despite itself, it somehow manages to work. The plot has inconsistencies all over the place, the accents are terrible and the cast seem split on whether to take it all seriously or ham it up. But that is part of its charm in many ways. The filmmakers wisely keep much of core mythology vague, doling out key elements that develop the central character, whilst ensuring the larger backstory remains mysterious. Its a lesson the sequels failed to heed. It’s also clear the filmmakers expected no future franchise with the film providing a satisfying closure for the characters and the themes explored. Indeed this focus on the central character is what makes the film work so well, with the location and historical setting lending the film an epic quality that would otherwise be absent and the core idea that immortality is as much a curse as a gift brought to the fore. For all his difficulties with the accent, Lambert takes the character seriously and whilst he endlessly broods in the present, its the exploration of his past that works to make the audience care and relate to his isolation. Both Sean Connery and Clancy Brown ensure the audience doesn’t take it all too seriously and provide some much needed humour and fun. It helps that the film also has a killer soundtrack from Queen.
Everyone keeps suggesting there is a paradox concerning the 5D future humans and their ability to save humanity in the past. It's really not a paradox at all. Everyone assumes humanity survived to ascend to the 5th dimension but how could humanity exist in the future if not for the actions of Cooper.. who was guided by future humans (begin endless loop).
Did anyone ever consider the other important character in the movie? Amelia Brand carried on with the rest of her mission (thanks to Cooper). I postulate that Brand used the human seeds as intended and set up a colony. A colony that would thrive and eventually evolve beyond human. Thus Earth is of little importance, and may have indeed died. These colonists, and the generations that followed, would have been told the story of a great man (Cooper) who saved them from extinction. With the ability to manipulate space-time, they would pay homage to their hero "God" by helping him in the past so he may fulfill the mission most important to him, to once again see his daughter. Plan B worked beautifully. But the 5d humans, having the power to bend space-time, decided there's no reason why Plan A had to fail.
