Trakt for iOS
Works on iPhone and iPad.
With the latest live action translation 'Cruella', Disney is trying to mimic the successful formula used for 'Maleficent',. Take an antagonist from one of their classics and switch her to an anti-hero protagonist. Pulling the same trick twice is difficult, even for veterans with big artistic freedoms, the strong studio influences don't do them many favors either.
Disney's firm grip on its own material is understandable, but as we see time and time again is more often than not problematic for most of their current live-action translations. There is not much in the story of 'Cruella' that makes any of the characters very relatable or recognizable for people unknown with the 'source' material. Unlike the 2014 'Maleficent' there is no redeeming villain act in 'Cruella', neither is there a positive message (or any clear one at all for that matter) in the film. Add to that some repetitive and dragging scenes, only kept together by flashy visuals and music. I am unsure this is a movie you want to show to your kids, and for adults it can be rather dull.
Most problematic is the soundtrack. First of all, the choice for a focus on rock & roll and especially punk music is very complementary with the themes in the movie (although the whole status/fashion part of that is contradictory.) However, the songs often feel very forced and only superficially connected to what is happening on screen. Secondly, the movie is simply to family friendly to really be able to carry any sort of punk theme. The mix with Disco and R&B was a mystery to me, especially when 'Car Wash' played i was totally taken out of the movie. There is also an overload of well known songs to be recognized by the audience, not contributing much to the film.
Absolutely the most positive part in this film is the acting. Emma Thompson is impressive and steals the show in this movie. Even though Emma Stone performs great, Thompson kind of outshines her most of the time. Emma Stone is a great actress though, and she does notably well here too. Especially noteworthy is Emma Stone her use of voice. She clearly studied the original voice actor for Cruella wel, and her use and tone of voice is done very accurately and fitting.
Besides the acting and some nice visuals every now and then there is not much value in this movie to put your time in. An overly long runtime, unclear or poor message and a soundtrack that does not do more than a good Spotify playlist drag down the movie as a whole. If you want to see Emma (any of them) shine, it can be worth the watch though.
Weird series of movie shorts (NOT a feature film) with high amounts of 'just-out-of-filmschool' feels, mixed with attempts at being Terrence Malick. Not recommended for most.
'Raya and the Last Dragon' is a story that mirrors reality and some of the problems we face currently. It brings a positive story about coming together in a time of turmoil and polarization, in the face of a (not so subtle real world metaphor) imminent threat. With the best technical visuals an animated movie can probably bring us today, likeable characters and a good balance between serious and lighter tones, this is a perfect movie to watch with your kids or just alone on a big screen.
'Raya and the Last Dragon' is once again a new frontier in (3D) animated film. The absolutely stunning animation is rich in color and with a lot of attention to detail. The lightning, water, facial expressions and movements are of a level rarely seen before. Disney once again proves to be at the utmost forefront of technical capabilities in (3D) animated film.
One of the most noticeable issues in the movie is the editing. Pacing and tone are never actually bad, but events happen fairly quickly one after another, which makes the journey not feel like much of a challenge to overcome. There are also some tonal issues between moments when the dragon is on screen, and the main characters conflict. Considering the primary focus group for Disney is kids, this is not something I would call as too problematic.
The cutting is too fast for my taste though. A bit more time to be able appreciate the beautiful shots of landscapes or other scenes would have been nice. And where the editing mostly starts to fall apart is when fast paced scenes (like fighting scenes) happen. The cutting is too often and too fast, which can trigger a feeling of dizziness at times.
Again, as a movie primarily aimed at kids, I do not expect depths to the likes of 'Mulholland Drive', 'Se7en' or even 'Spirited Away', so the following is not a major complaint. The characters are decent, sometimes original, and well rounded, world building is done well (although I personally thought the exposition could have been a bit better integrated) and the dialogue does not feel forced and has a good flow.
At the end of the movie I do feel the characters and story are a bit lacking in depth. I think that even without making the characters or story more complicated, this could have been improved by giving a but more time for the characters (and viewer) to grasp the situation they are in. To let them contemplate the situation, and give them some time to breath.
Because of the clear message the movie is giving off, the story is fairly predictable. And even while the message of trust can be a bit in your face at times, this does not detract of the enjoyment I had while watching.
With beautiful animation, good world building, a nice sounding score and rather original characters and the general fast pace, this is a movie that is a feast to watch (especially with kids.) The decent but predictable story is good enough to carry it's message properly, without it getting annoying. Overall 'Raya and the Last Dragon' is a good new addition to the Disney animated movie collection.
It is hard not to compare the 2021 Snyder's Cut to the 2017 release, which was generally perceived as a messy film due to its problems during production. There is definitely more coherence and structure in this version, with less plot holes and more time for the characters to breathe (not in last place because of the significantly increased -doubled- run time.) However, in many moments it is clear the movie has been edited together from incomplete and/or unfinished material. This is especially noticeable in several of the (many) CGI scenes, which look outdated and unpolished. It makes (some of) the choices made in the 2017 version more understandable, even though it does not make them any better. The hated reshoots that ended up in the 2017 version were clearly not unnecessary, just the execution was poor.
Light Spoilers ahead (marked.)
The antagonist is clearly one of the main improvements. Steppenwolf is relatively well fleshed out, and no longer a completely forgettable generic bad guy (and I thought his costume looked awesome! No idea why that was changed in the earlier version.) It remains a problem that he is just a henchman, and the big bad guy boss (Darkseid) plays no real role in the story. Darkseid appearance has not much added value because of that. It adds significantly to the antagonist motivation, but his appearance is mostly used to make way for a next movie.
We also spend more time on Cyborg and his character, which is deserving and rewarding and makes him a more interesting character to watch.
The dynamic within the team is also much more balanced, with less awkward forced moments.
That being said, the main focus clearly never was the characters themselves, which is not unusual for a blockbuster (superhero) movie. There are scenes that feel out of place because of sudden shifts of tone and focus. Also, several events, plot lines and choices or alternatives are never explored or given a pay off.
There are several setups that are never paid off, especially with the introduction of additional characters. This pads the runtime unnecessarily and often makes the movie feel like a set up for later movies (which will probably never see the light of day.) Secondly, their are so many endings, it could compete with LOTR's Return of The King for most endings in a major film release, and unlike RotK, it is not to finish up those aforementioned loose ends, but rather to set up new plots.
Of course this has to be mentioned. The choice for 4:3 ratio has been done for creative reasons, and it has already caused division among the viewers. Their are many shots where the 4:3 ratio is exceptionally impressive, and it is justifies the choice for that aspect ratio. However, in just as many scenes the lack of widescreen makes the experience underwhelming. This is (logically) mostly the case with wideshots and the big battles. When the ever present but lacking CGI meets those wideshot angles, this negative effect is even more increased, and it made me feel like watching an episode of Friends or other old television show.
In conclusion, the chosen aspect ratio has both its merits and demerits. The difference between 4:3 and Widescreen is not impossible to overcome to use in 1 film, but it is significant which makes it tricky to naturally switch between them. The choice to stay dedicated to an unchanging Ratio is logical.
This is an average but fun epic superhero movie that is enjoyable to watch if you have the time and patience for it. The movie is split into several distinct sections, with headers, so it is possible to watch it as a mini-series. It does not rise to the heights of Infinity War, but it also does not steep as low as Suicide Squad.
Did this movie have any dialogue written before filming? Because it looks like it was all ad-libbed on the spot. I will give them some credit though, some lines were probably written in the break room on a dirty tissue a few minutes before the shoot.
Everything about this movie is bad, except for maybe the filming equipment. Probably in my top 10 worst movies I ever saw.
This movie is as if the 1980's and the 1880's were mashed together into one. A slow paced, incomplete and try-to-be creative, but not very convincing, story about the life of brilliant inventor Nicola Tesla who was ahead of his time.
Besides the acting power of Hawke, and some (questionable) creative choices, there is not much here.
This is incredibly average and boring.
What a fantastic albeit bittersweet movie. Chung Keun-sup both wrote and directed this by himself. And it results in an almost Villeneuve-style movie. Although the constraints of the genre and probably the lack of experience of the director sometimes show in certain aspects. Needless to say he did a great job in creating a captivating story and film. Such a shame that I could not find any more work from him, bc he looks like a promising and talented director.
The camerawork and editing is of high quality, and in the writing of the story there is great attention to detail. Even though the story in itself looks not that remarkable on the surface, what was done with it in 'Montage' shows an understanding of the craft of movie making well.
'Mulan' suffers from poor character writing and questionable creative decisions that ultimately could disappoint both audiences it was made for.
As with most of the Disney live action remakes, 'Mulan' uses a similar base as it's 1998 animated version. However it does not try to recreate it's predecessor scene for scene, while also not deviating as much as some of the other remakes did. Ultimately the balance of originality was pretty well done in this regard. Combine this with stunning set pieces and an inspiring message and this should make for a good, or at least an entertaining, movie. The bad news is that it doesn't.
Warning: Spoilers ahead! (hidden)
What Mulan (played by Liu Yifei) initially is fighting for is the safety of her family (mostly her father) and bringing honour to her family. This is a challenge for her, because her skills do not conform to what is accepted for girls in her society. Mulan has a high amount of chi inside her. Chi (in this movie) is an inconsistently used power that is either a stand-in for magic, or for being able to do martial arts at high levels without (proper) training.
The problem starts with that Mulan's whole character arc is based on this aspect, foregoing any actual personality and turning her into basically a Mary Sue. Only mid-second act we are shown she can outsmart others and can think tactically, which is not (properly) set up.
The sad thing is that the aspect of chi does not enrich the story, but rather takes away from Mulan as a character.
At the opposite side of the spectrum we have the "witch" Niang (played by Gong Li) who uses her chi to wield magic. She has arguably the best character development in the film, however predictable. She joins the enemy Rouran army because she was not accepted for who she was. In this way she hopes to change the world and get rid of the oppression against woman that are different. However she gets betrayed by the Rouran leader, Bori Kahn (played by Jason Scott Lee), who has the same denigrating ideas about who she is. After Mulan gets accepted for who she is by her fellow soldiers, the witch redeams herself by sacrificing her life to save Mulan.
During a key scene of the movie, Mulan and Niang meet, and Mulan declares she fights for the emperor because she knows her place. In that moment she chooses to continue the cycle of oppression she experienced in the first place. This was such a strange moment for me, because it contradicted her original motivation completely. It looked like it was a later change after studio intervention, and it was what broke Mulan's character.
It did not help that most of the performances of the actors were rather lackluster. I can not qualify it as bad, ,most of the time it was just fine. But there were moments when the acting was not convincing or too mediocre and lacking dedication. I had hoped to see a bit more of Jet Li, but with the role he plays my expectations were not set too high.
As said in the opening, the set pieces, background and photography that are done for this movie are stunning. CGI is done very well too. Not too in your face, and most of the time not obtrusive. Costumes and make-up is also masterfully done, and deserves big compliments. So many times you can just look at the images on screen and forget about the story for a moment and feast your eyes.
The directing however is awkward from time to time. Rather intrusive camera movements and strange angles and cutting. Especially during two action scenes of the Rourans attacking, several confusing and unnecessary camera rotations were used that had no function other than being a gimmick. Cutting was often at not intuitive moments and unusual time- and locations jumps happened more than you would want to see. There might have been some inconsistency in the editing process or during the re-shoots, but it was noticeably distracting.
The story itself was done well enough. Of course there was already a solid basis for the story, and I think they build nicely on that. They worked in some new material, gave the enemy a more appropriate name than the kind of inaccurate 'Huns' it used to be. The action was expanded and some interesting perspectives were added. I did not miss the comic relief dragon nor the music, I think it could have messed with the tone of the movie too much. Overall it was a rather coherent and consistent story, but it also did not achieve great heights.
It was obvious that Disney did not want to rub the message too much in your face. The movie can lead to some debate even as it is. And Disney clearly did not want to scare away the Chinese audience, or worse, displease the Chinese government. I think it was difficult for the studio to balance between keeping western audience satisfied as well as the Chinese audience, while also satisfying fans of the 1998 animation and newcomers. It affected the story in making it safe, while at the same time trying to please several camps resulting in some inconsistencies. But in the end, I think it could have been a lot worse.
While 'Mulan' is beautiful to watch at times, the characters and message of the movie are broken. The studio trying to please too many people from very different backgrounds damaged the movie, even though it could have been much worse. I think it is a fine movie for the majority of people to enjoy, but don't expect much special.
Fast paced action movie with decent visual effects and a setting that reminds of 'Limitless' (2011) but with a wider range of powers. Its major drawbacks are a lack of character depth and the absence of a decent antagonist.
This low budget movie offers some lighthearted fun for gamers and fans of the 80s, although it might still be enjoyable for others too.
Expect poor acting and a ridiculous story in a reference rich environment. Fitting for the comedy of Kevin Smith and Wil Wheaton and (at least partially) funded by a kickstarter campaign. They clearly went rampant with this project, and the passion and fun everyone had while making this film jumps off the screen. So even if all else fails, at least it has that.
With a good cast and some good ideas it is disappointing this movie does not achieve more than the average cop crime thriller.
The ideas are there, and at several points the movie tips its toes into intriguing territories. However, it avoids to tackle the themes and questions it sets up, which results in frustrating moments and it lets the movie as a whole fall way below the potential it had. Even though it does not manage to outshine some of the other movies in its genre, it still is a decent movie to watch.
With over 90 comments already existing, I will keep it short.
It looks like the two writers responsible for this movie bit off more than they can chew. Looking at their experience, they were involved in some rather questionable movies already, with the best ones being comedy. I think this is what resulted in (some of the) the poor character decisions, awkward tone shifts between sci-fi horror, thriller-action and even comedy, and some poor plot decisions.
This movie looks like it was made by someone still in film school, but on a bigger budget.
The movie is a collection of cliches and poor directing choices from beginning to end. Writing (character, dialogue and plot) is poor, music is off-putting, and does match the atmosphere or is too in your face. Visuals are okay, however questionable editing and directing choices undercut this. Acting is meh at best.
Better to skip this one if you have something else (better) to watch, you won't miss much.
The first one already did not do so well, mostly excelling in original design, decent CGI and it's (attempt of) focusing on characters. Part 2 continues this tradition, but sacrifices the few good things about the first movie with just a grander scale.
Boring, unfunny, poorly written and lackluster acting. Even as a family/kids movie, there are many better films out there.
'Die Hard' in space but bad.
Enjoyable movie that does not overstays it's welcome.
I recognized the story while watching (maybe I saw the National Geographic episode that was dedicated to this, or through some YouTube channel) and I felt like it was done well without getting too unfaithful to the original story (I have not done my research on this though, so don't take me word on it.)
The aim was clearly to go for a more realistic experience, and try not to overly sensationalize the plot or visuals. And at times the movies leans more toward a (visually more darker) 'The Great Escape' rather than a 'Shawshank Redemption'. Although 'Escape From Pretoria' does not reach the heights of either of those aforementioned prison classics, the movie is worth the watch and can stand on it's own well enough.
PS. I had no issue with the 'Harry Potter effect' that is mentioned in some of the other comments. I think the reason for that might be that it has been a while since I saw any of the HP films, while at the same time I saw several other movies of Radcliffe. To the others I would recommend to try watch him in some of his totally different roles, like the absurd 'Swiss Army Man' and the more recent 'Guns Akimbo'. The humour might be a bit odd, so I can't give any guarantee you like it. Or you can try 'Imperium'. I did not see that one, but it had decent reviews and is a lot more serious.
Next Gen is not the worst animation movie you will ever see, and definitely is watchable, but too simplistic and flawed to be worth more than a single watch. I would also not recommend it for kids considering the theme, the level of violence and (too?) obvious bleeped swearing.
Story is bland and predictable, lacking some character depth and several plot holes. I won't blame it too severely on that, even though many (animated) kid movies proof that's not necessary.
Most importantly, the animation is inconsistent. There are some (very) good moments, but overall (especially the humans, fluids and backgrounds) look outdated and more like a Saturday cartoon, then a movie. They clearly focused their efforts on the big battle at the end.
I know the movie intents to be messy, but for me personally it didn't work. Too often it felt forced, which made it either into a gimmick being messy for the reason of being messy, while other times it felt messy in an unintended way.
The exposition is probably the worst part of the film. In some kind of attempt to mimic Deadpool or other recent meta/3rd wall breaking movies, it uses narration a lot. And I mean really a lot. It looks like they had to use narration in order to make the movie understandable and messy at the same time, without making its runtime too bloated.
The idea to make the movie hectic is in essence not bad, it can fit well with the Quinn character if done correctly. The execution just left a lot to desire, and it affected many characters in a bad way. They became inconsistent, and/or lacked screentime, background (except for aforementioned narration) or motivation.
Also: I enjoyed Ewan McGregor until I didn't.
Also: I enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead until I didn't.
'Spencer Confidential' is an average run of the mill action-detective movie, and it reminded me a bit of the (direct to TV/video) detective films of the 90s. It is never great, but it also never gets too bad either. The story is fine, although a little predictable here and there. The acting is decent, same for the dialogue and the fighting and action scenes.
Just a decent movie without ever really surprising the audience. Don't expect a masterpiece, and it'll be fine.
Good to watch with friends, or when you are alone and want something light to watch.
The franchise became chaotic and messy from all the backpedaling after fan criticism. Because of this, the 3rd trilogy feels incoherent and without a clear vision, which damages the overall story. This last part is still a good and enjoyable film, especially in the blockbuster 'genre', but it can't rise above (no pun intended) it's competition.
Poor film with shallow scripting, mediocre action, and uncompelling story. The characters are rather one-dimensional and many plot lines don't go anywhere. Ending is also highly unsatisfying.
After the terrible 'Olympus', and the even worse 'London', I expected more of the same terribleness in this 3rd installment. But somehow it was not that bad. It still has many of the same flaws the earlier ones had, but they are overall less severe, and it even looked like they tried to add some story to it (although not that well executed, but at least they tried?)
Still far from a good movie, but this one I could at least enjoy. My surprise says more about how bad the first 2 in the fallen installment are.
Average action movie that for some reason is lacking in VFX while it is supposed to excel in that.
Not only the CGI is wonky, even lightning and coloration is simply terrible at points. Best example is the 'night' scene at the harbour, which is filmed on a way too bright day. I never saw moonlight bounce of surfaces (forehead, hair, boats, water surface) that brightly! xD I have no problem with darkening a day shot scene itself, it has been done for decades in various ways and degrees of success (although it can make a movie feel a bit dated) but this was clearly a case of thinking ANYTHING can be done in post, which is simply not true. Although this movie wanted to show how advanced CGI/VFX has become, it became more proof in what way it still fails (regardless of the reason why.)
Most action scenes itself are enjoyable though, with a highlight being the motor chase scene. Even a prolonged wrestling fight/hand to hand fight and an underwater fight don't feel too confusing, which is worth a compliment. Fast paced, without jumping all over the place, and dares and succeeds to use some longer than average shots in the middle of dense action giving a proper situational awareness to the viewer.
The story is not great, but also not terribly weak. Better than the average action movie for sure, but it won't win a price for storytelling anytime soon. The focus is obviously put more toward the action, and that is fine.
This is also noticeable in the dialogues. which are never memorable but also not become too crazy. Although it can get a bit flat or cringy sometimes. Especially in moments when the acting is also failing. In general it is, again, not terrible, but it lacks passion and in some cases can be lackluster, while in other cases it can be called over the top.
Overall enjoyable movie, and to me it did not feel like a waste of time. But also I would not recommend it quickly, and a good chance it will be forgotten in a few years time.
I think the others said it very well, this film can be best described in one word: Boring!
There is not enough there to make this moving interesting. They had an idea, but it is not worked out well. So we end up with a movie with little content that tries to distract with visuals that are more annoying than anything else.
This was one of the most incoherent movies I watched in a while. I got lost so many times, that I cannot blame just myself for that anymore. Not even the best visuals would have saved this movie.
Amazing for the beautiful music, as a documentary however it is not so great. Treat it as a live-coverage of the concert with background stories and 'behind the scenes' material.
'The circle' aims high, manages to perform well until about halfway, then it crashes in a rather lackluster and unresolved ending.
I did not know much about this movie before going in, except for it having a stellar cast with Tom Hanks, Emma Watson, Karen Gillan (someone I always like seeing), Bill Paxton and Patton Oswalt. After watching the movie I was very surprised by discovering the utter trash reviews it got from both critics and fans. I can see its flaws, but I do not agree this amount of low-balling is something the movie deserves in my humble opinion.
Warning: Light spoilers ahead. (Heavy spoilers are hidden.)
Let's start at the beginning; Mae (played by Emma Watson) is a 20-something girl living somewhere in the near future in the San Fransisco area. She has a dead-end job at a customer service company, and she isn't happy. Her life goes nowhere, and she feels bad for not being able to help her dad, who suffers from MS. The story kick starts when her friend sets her up for an interview with a high-profile tech company. From this point onwards things start to snowball, and Mae gets pulled deeper and deeper into her work until she becomes like a social media, pop star-like, mascot for the company.
'The circle' follows a conventional third person storytelling with 3 tightly structured acts. It is based on the book with the same name written by Dave Eggers. The story revolves around a fictional company called 'The circle' which is an obvious possible future mirror of Apple, but can also represent Google, Facebook, Samsung, Amazon or other tech giants we know today. The main dilemma is about the discussion of privacy vs. transparency, a question notably relevant in today's world concerning tech companies and public surveillance. It also touches upon the value of friendship, family, self confidence and a late coming-of-age story of a 20-something year old.
The initial set up is done well, but nothing special. We get introduced to the main character her life; her family, most important friends, her first days at 'the circle' and its community. The first signs of trouble arrive when Mae is confronted by not having set up her social media profile at the company after a week of being there. After this the stakes slowly get higher and higher, something that is subtly (but a bit too obviously) paced. The most intriguing thing that the movie does is taking that initial dilemma, and move the line that needs to be crossed slightly further every time. It reminded me a bit of the 1981 film 'The Wave' which was based on a real life experiment by a teacher in Germany. A teacher showed the dangers of populism and fascism by slowly setting a more extreme boundary, so he avoided a 'shock effect' and the people (students) kept following him. The difference is that the jumps are sometimes a bit too big in 'The Circle'. It looks like the movie wants to make you think about the questions it asks its characters more than giving an in-world experience. My guess is that this is why the movie bombed with both critics and audience.
This also goes for the ending; when Mae turns the tables on the bosses of the company (played by Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt) it is unclear if she wants to continue the direction the company is heading in and even widen it, or is actually out on stopping it but knows it is already too late and the end result will be inevitable at this point. Again I think the movie rather wants to hold up a mirror to our current society and not make a finished product with all the answers. Even though I sympathise with this, it is not executed well enough and the ending might be either too ambiguous or not ambiguous enough with Mae sitting in her kajak surrounded by drones. Could this be a result from her choice? Or was it an inevitable thing?
The actors portraying the main characters are performing ok overall. Nobody really gave a bad performance, but there were no little moments where they actually shine either. The chemistry between characters was lacking sometimes because of clunky dialogue, most notably the chemistry between Mae (Emma Watson) and Annie (Karen Gillan) was rather lacking, and it made the toilet scene rather dull. Also the public fight between Mae and Mercer (Ellar Coltrane) was a bit cringy and lacked common sense. The best scenes were in the beginning of the movie, with Mae seeing her dad (played by Bill Paxton) having problems and Mae being thankful for Annie helping her and her parents. The characters and performances shined best on itself, with Karen Gillan being the highlight in the non-verbal acting.
The movie has a comforting use of lightning, and there are some beautiful set pieces and location shots and/or photography. It sets a consistent colour palet and tone for its settings, which is usually agreeing with a positive Silicon valley kind of mentality. This contrasts the dark undertone the movie has, and to me that was something I really enjoyed. It mimics reality where the positivity of technology often outshines (or simply ignores) the risks. Also the implementation of the technology was rather seamless. It was obviously there, but it was never too surreal or too much. Music was rather minimalistic and fitting, but except for a handful of scenes never more than just some complimentary background music.
Even though this movie has many flaws, I enjoyed watching it thoroughly. It hinges between a documentary of social decay and a satire comedy drama. Even though it fails to be any of those perfectly, it does well as a society commentary and only drops the ball in being a bit too obvious and never delivering on it's hinted solution.
I was very intrigued by one of the comments Mae received, which stated "No one at the circle has kids." This insinuated that the circle has no future, and even though the questions this movie asks are relevant, I doubt this movie will stay relevant for very long considering its bad reception.
