I felt like this was missing something and didn't live up to the full potential it could've. Maybe it was the title, "Multiverse of Madness", maybe it was all the trailers that did a great job misleading us while also spoiling all the best parts of the movie, or maybe I just didn't like how two dimensional they made Wanda after she spent an entire show already learning how her power can hurt people and exposing everyone to her grief. How many times did Wanda need to indirectly quote Thanos before we got the point? "I call that mercy", "They'll never know..." etc.
Overall this has kind of cut down my excitement for phase 4 a bit, and coming from someone who LOVED the infinity saga that hurts and worries me to say. I feel like the movie tries to over simplify things and these were characters that aren't simple. This needed to be deeper. I feel like we needed to see Kang here, even if just for a moment or two. I feel like we needed Loki too. The only trouble with opening the multiverse can of worms is now it REALLY doesn't matter when some of these heroes are getting killed, "Oh that's just Mr Fantastic from 818, this is 6 1 whatever".
It wasn't bad, it just wasn't really good either, and with how much hype they put on it I'm let down. This needed a real villain. It's not that Scarlet Witch didn't make a good villain, it's that I didn't want to see her be one after the journey we've gone on with her, and her doing the right thing in the end doesn't excuse her murdering like a hundred people no matter what universes they were in and her logic was flawed from the start.
And where the F is "real" Mordo?
Actually pretty decent for Michael Bay’s own standards.
You still get the usual cringe, out of touch jokes, pornographic directing and cocaine-fueled editing choices, but it’s also way less obnoxious than some of his previous efforts (Transformers 5, 6 Underground) and surprisingly light on the trademark fireworks.
It’s trying really hard to be a dumb 90’s action movie, and while I admire the attempt, 90’s action movies typically aren’t as much of an instantly forgettable blur that this is. Like, some of the drone shots in this are really cool and could be very memorable in theory, but why aren’t we lingering on these shots for longer than 2 seconds?
Also, I found the meta references in this pretty annoying, it felt like Michael Bay jerking off to himself. He doesn’t just reference himself though, as for example the first action scene is clearly trying to rip-off the big scene in Heat, which you just shouldn’t do, unless you’re Christopher Nolan.
The characters are all pretty flat, acting isn’t great, Jake’s carrying hard and clearly having a blast.
I wasn’t really bored by it, but I don’t really see how you can be entertained by it either.
It’s a lot of visual and sonic noise that in the end is much ado about nothing.
It just sort of exists, it needed to be a lot zanier and use its own stupidity to its advantage.
If you’d retool this to fit with the Fast and Furious brand, and bring in that crew, this would probably be a lot more entertaining.
4/10
I can't even put into words my distaste for this movie. Only Americans will ask you to feel bad for their war criminals. The quote by Frankie Boyle describes this film perfectly, “Not only will America go to your country and kill all your people, they’ll come back twenty years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.” The whole point of The Card Counter is to try to get you to sympathize with a war criminal who tortured, killed, terrorized people. Not only that but it's extremely unrealistic to ask the viewer to believe that anyone responsible for Abu Ghraib faced meaningful consequences. Like, come on, now!
This movie followed the most boring protagonists, who are as dull as they can get. Zero chemistry between any member of the cast. Oscar Isaac, Tiffany Haddish, and Tye Sheridan are basically in 3 different movies and each one of them is total garbage:
"Abu Ghraib torturer, but make him seeeexy" How? Oh, cast hot actor with beautiful eyes. Plus, he did his time, 8 years for the most vile crimes you can possibly imagine. But he is a good guy now. He fucks girls and support college kids. For someone I guess we're supposed to dislike (?), the movie spends a lot of time showing how cool he is.
Tiffany Haddish must’ve been the only actress to audition for the role of La Linda because she was radically miscast. She is not ready for dramatic acting. As for her character – she is independent and has connections with rich folks … that’s it. Wow, so interesting, right?! The 'chemistry' between her and Isaac was weird. It wasn’t seductive, it just felt like watching high schoolers flirt, but even more painful.
Cirk seemed like he is dumb as rocks. To expect us to care so much about a kid who we don't even know is irresponsible. I couldn't care less about his death or revenge killing.
Oh, and there is another character introduced like "USA!" guy with no point. But he was born in Ukraine, so he is not American. Oscar Isaac was born in Guatemala, grew up in USA and plays an American dude, while people born in Ukraine who grew up in USA are only Ukrainian. Even if you want to follow American rules, you just can’t because the Yanks are very inconsistent and hypocritical.
Most bad movies have some redeeming qualities. I can’t think of anything with this, everything just felt so bland to me:
Nothing is happening, and the movie is sooo repetitive . Oscar Isaac looking serious and walking in a casino,with suspenseful music - this is like 80% of the movie.
Almost every scene is an end in itself, nothing is explored, and doesn’t progress the story at all scene to scene.
The music. Oh, the music, which mainly featured vapid, brooding indie/electronic songs, is just all over the place here. I hated it!
There is basically no concept of tension or mystery, which is pretty important when you’re watching a fake game of poker.
The philosophy was so juvenile, and the movie lacks anything interesting to say. We are supposed to believe the main character is very mysterious and smart but he is one of the most boring, dull and flat characters I have ever seen.
The dialogue is godawful, no exaggeration here! "I have no goals", "Have you ever read a book", "What is your story" etc. It felt so awkward and as if the characters aren’t even talking to each other.
Why is it called The Card Counter when the main character counted cards once onscreen and then spends the entire movie playing poker?
Did I see a different movie than all of these people rating it high?
This is film that enters some very well-worn movie territory. The parents that ruin your life. With a cast most producers would sell their grandparents for and a fine dramatic premise surely The Family Fang could not fail.
For me, it was a little from column A and little from column B. You have to hand it to Nicole Kidman her choice of starrers is eclectic and with Bateman taking on the directing reins and as well as a role he seems to be leading away from his more comic roles. He does a fine job. Walken and Hahn are old hands at this and probably hardly needed any directing.
So having said that, this should be a great film. But something was missing and I can’t explain what. Somewhere deep in the soul of the film that little spark that makes a standard film great was missing. It was impossible not feel sorry for Annie and Baxter but after what they had been put through, whether they agreed it was ‘art’ (they didn’t seem to) or not, you could not help feeling that they would not have anything to do with their parent whatsoever. Even America has a social services programme for children that are mistreated and whose parents make them commit illegal acts.
The story and performances kept me watching with the use of flashbacks in the form of a never used documentary ‘The Family Fang’ being a clever touch but I feel that you get out of the story what you bring to it.
For instance, I sort of get Caleb’s take on art, I truly do, but to take it as far as he does in the film leaves me cold. I could feel the pretentiousness washing over me as I watched. So, in the end, I couldn’t connect with them, I felt they was more of the touch of idiots about them and my tolerance for such people in real life would be lower than it was for this film. Therefore the treatment of the children just became abusive the more the story progressed.
If you want to be blunt this is about two selfish a-wipes who messed up their children permanently for art. How you feel about that is going to be how you feel about this film from the start.
The Family Fang is probably worth a watch but you really have to be in the right mood that’s for sure.
So right off the bat... As a movie, this is pretty shit. Maybe a 6.5/10 overall if you had to rate it honestly.
It's mildly funny, predictable, overacted, arrogantly and self-righteously American.
But that's not what the sum of the parts is.... That is exactly what it is trying to be.
What you have here is a searing indictment of modern humanity. Self-obsessed, intellectually inept, molly-coddled Americans who - when faced with the end of the world - decide to turn it into a political battleground, attempt to milk it for profit, hand it over to sociopathic billionaire industrialists as the government officials are too incapable to handle the situation, who ultimately pay the price for their decisions.
It's a sadly accurate depiction of where the West stands at the moment. Crippled by 40 years of mind-numbing entertainment that has depleted our intelligence, our ability for critical thought and common sense.
I wouldn't rewatch this if you paid me. And it is 30 minutes too long. But it is the most realistic holding up of a mirror to society as I have seen in a decade.
The most reasoned and insightful view of how messed up we are as nations today is coming from satirical comedy. Just as it always has.
7.5/10
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
Bloodsport: “Nobody likes a showoff.”
Peacemaker: “Unless what they showing off is dope as fuck.”
James Gunn recently said in an interview that he finds superhero movies “mostly boring” right now. Anything ranging from safe and boring or technically well-made but disposable, at best. Gunn received at bit of heat from fans for those remarks, but in some sense, he’s not wrong. Because sometimes following the same formula will eventually wear fin and more risk taking needs to happen.
And here we have ‘The Suicide Squad’, the soft reboot to the 2016 film, but this time directed by Gunn himself, where he delivers a highly entertaining movie that is bursting with creativity and ultra-violence. James Gunn once again shakes up the superhero formula with a slick style. I’m just glad DC is finally letting directors have a voice and a vision, and I hope it stays like that.
The first 10-15 minutes tells you exactly what the movie is going to be.
I just can't believe we got something like this. It's 2 hours and 12 minutes long, but it's always on the move. It’s bonkers from start till finish, and I enjoyed every minute of it. This is probably one of the best shot movies in the DCU. The soundtrack is great as well and used effectively. The action scenes were insane and made the overall experience one of the most fun I had at the cinema in a long time.
A massive improvement over the 2016 film, AKA ‘the studio cut’, is that the movie doesn’t look ugly and isn’t chopped together by trailer editors. The movie is vibrant in colours that made it look pleasing to the eye. The structure at times is messy, and yet strangely well-paced, as there’s a lot going on.
Did I mention the movie is very gory? It’s cartoonish violence, or what people call "adult superhero movie", so it's not for kiddies or for the faint of heart. You would probably guess that not everybody on the team is going to make it to the end credits, so deaths are to be expected, but how certain characters “bite the dust” are so unexpectedly gruesome and brutal, it took me by surprise each time. The marketing for the movie was right, don’t get too attached. As I said before, James Gunn had complete creative control over the movie, and he doesn’t hold back on what he wrote and show on screen. But then again, it's a movie, it's not real, the actors who die on screen are fine in real life...I think.
All the cast members have equal amount of time to shine, and you like these super villains this time around, as each character had wonderful chemistry with each other. John Cena plays Peacemaker, who can be best described as a “douchebag version of Captain America”. An extreme patriot who will do the most horrific things for liberty. John Cena excels in the deadpan line delivery for comedic effect, but surprisingly enough, worked well in the serious moments. Looking forward to the spin-off show ‘Peacemaker’.
Margot Robbie once again nails the role of the chaotic but gleeful Harley Quinn. While the character isn’t front and centre this time around, more of a side character, but whenever the character is on screen, it’s instantly memorable.
Idris Elba plays Bloodsport, a contract killer who’s doing time in prison after failing to kill Superman with a kryptonite bullet, while also dealing with family issues, especially with his daughter. While the character may sound like Will Smith’s Deadshot from the 2016 film, but trust me, the execution here is much stronger. This is by far Elba’s best work in a while. Charismatic and a strong leading presence.
Polka Dot Man, played by character actor David Dastmalchian, a socially awkward, weird, and lame sounding character that has some serious mummy issues, which has a funny running visual gag throughout. However, because of Gunn’s writing and Dastmalchian's performance, the character is more than a joke, but a unique character to watch.
Ratcatcher 2, played wonderfully by Daniela Melchior, who brought so much warmth and heart to the film. I loved how they tied in her tragic backstory into the finale, as it honestly made me cry. And let’s not forget the king himself, King Shark, voiced by Sylvester Stallone. He stole every scene he’s in, because he’s so adorable and has such kind eyes, but when he’s hungry, he can be a killing machine.
The rest of the supporting cast, even in the smaller roles, still manage to stand out amidst all the chaos. I liked Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flag a lot more this time around, because the actor was given more to work with in terms of good material. Viola Davis is brilliant as the cold and ruthless Amanda Waller. And Peter Capaldi is always a pleasure to see. Also, I like the character of Weasel, who I can describe as a unholy offspring of Shin Godzilla and Rocket Racoon. He may not be beautiful to look at, but he's beautiful to me.
Like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’, the movie has a lot of heart and I like how they took certain characters, who on page sound stupid and ridiculous but are handled with such love and depth, while also being self-aware of its own characterization.
You can literally watch this as a standalone movie and you won’t be lost or confused, as you don’t need to watch 22 other movies to understand it. This is by far the strongest entry in this jumbled mess of a cinematic universe.
Overall rating: Nom-nom!
"Why do you keep looking as if there's something wrong? Everything's fine."
I’ve haven’t cried this hard at a movie since 'I'm Thinking of Ending Things'. This is one of those films that just thinking about it or thinking about a specific scene will get my eyes teary. I’m honestly blown away by how moved I was by it. One of the best movies of 2020.
Anthony Hopkins gives one of the best performance since ‘Silence of the Lambs’. You may think that you've seen everything the veteran actor has to offer, but he continues to surprise and amaze us. He broke my heart a thousand times, especially the last five minutes which was some of the most powerful pieces of acting on screen. On the other hand, he’s also incredibly charming and funny as his character that it made him so mesmerizing to watch. I usually don’t care when it comes to awards, but I genuinely hope he gets some recognition at the Oscars with at least a nomination or maybe a win, because he is truly brilliant in this movie.
Olivia Colman, who plays Anthony's daughter, Anne, was also fantastic in the movie. Her facial expressions solid every emotion that the character was feeling and Colman is an expert at it. The pain, frustration, and the overwhelming love she has for her father, as she tries to find ways of helping him. I can’t imagine a more dreadful sight than watching your loved one decay away before your eyes and there’s nothing you can do about it.
While there have been other movies in the past that tackled the topic of dementia and old age on a surface level, where it mainly focuses on how friends and family coop with a significant others condition. However, this movie makes those films look flat in comparison. What makes this movie so different and yet more effective is that it’s told from the perspective of the sufferer. So, his confusion becomes ours. Simple things like switching Olivia Colman with a different actor can have a huge and scary impact, because when this first happened I was stunned, but I quickly realise this is the devastating reality of the disease where people you once knew start to look alienating to you.
Director Florian Zeller dose an excellent job of placing you in the shoes of someone going through dementia and have a better understanding of how the disease can affect you. Any other film marker would’ve done the predictable approach, which is to go over the top with the possibilities of presenting a surreal nightmare with flashy visuals, as a way to show off crazy camera work and digital effects, but Zeller instead keeps things grounded enough while in the imaginary world inside the characters head. It’s true what they say, less is more.
The movie is purposely structured and edited in a disorganised lucid dream-like manner, where certain elements such as the mention of names and the appearance of faces are a mystery to us just like the main character. Who are these people? Why is everything so mysterious? When you try to piece things together with the collection of scattered memories of events, it then gets shuffled around. Although, the movie isn’t as complicated as it may sound, it's just not straight forward narrative wise.
It was like watching a horror movie at times with the horrific effects of dementia. Your brain, metaphorically, is like a tree branch filled with leaves, but eventually with the slow effect of the disease, you will lose your leaves.
Overall rating: A magnificent movie that helps us understand the struggle and experience of dementia that was executed with extra care. It also goes beyond that in many different ways that I have yet to unlock in my first viewing. It’s a movie that I will never forget.
It's been so long since I've seen a styling masterfully directed movie from Guy Ritchie. This is far from the best movie of all time. Not even my favorite Guy Ritchie or Jason Statham film. But it's a movie that's told with such verve. This is a crew that isn't trying to do new experimental story telling at this point. They know exactly where they want to go. The tension and the pacing are prepared like a chef whose done this 100 times before. In the wrong hands you'd wonder why the narrative goes back and forth all the time but in Ritchie's hands this only serves to help the tension build.
This is your mother's pie, it's comfortable and delicious in all the ways you hope it would be. But there are misses here as there are in any film. Mostly in the writing. I like Statham and I think his presence carries the perfect amount of menace. There are a few poorly explained plot points like H taking pictures of employee badges (I think this was to do research on all of their names a point that leads absolutely nowhere). I understand H and I empathize with his motivation but I don't care about him. He's almost too much menace. A good Statham role is about 50-70% menace and the rest English bad-boy charm. H is about 90% menace leaving not enough room for anything else to matter. His previous characters have been meticulous and precise almost to a fault and you get to revel in his mastery but here we have that character interrupted forced to forgo the planning we know him for and in it's stead just a continuous forward progression. The rest of the cast is filled with characters that should have been fun. They have great names, solid backstories. In a John Wick style movie this cast would be amazing but here we could have used more of Ritchie's telltale dry gallows humor. For such a full cast filled with actors who could really chew the scenery they didn't get a lot to do. Taking everyone here and transplanting them in something like Boss Level would be perfect. Those characters were almost too cartoonish. I would have loved to see these actors get more to do.
I must say, the movie has a really good idea that's worth exploring. Sadly it never comes close to exploring said idea. It ends up being a generic Hollywood action movie and nothing more.
It's interesting to see how a society would function if part of the population's(The men's) thoughts were visible to everyone. There are interesting aspects to explore here about privacy. But the movie throws this concept under the bus and uses it just as a cheap gimmick.
Before the events in the movie, it's said that men and women lived together in Tom Holland's settlement. And then men became more and more suspicious of the women because they could not see their thoughts. This gradually drove the men to kill all the women. This is the movie I wanted to see. How did this happen? What were the internal struggles in the settlement? How did reading each other's thoughts affect the people? Instead, we are put after all of this and we follow the standard bad guy wants to kill girl, hero who has confidence issues saves girl from the bad guy and becomes self-realized in the process.
The thought-reading phenomenon was mostly used as a comic relief instead of being the center of a thought-provoking story. I'm kind of bummed out that this was the case. It would have been interesting to see how a society functions when everyone's thoughts are in the open. For instance, how courts work, how is trade done, etc.
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.
This is a fascinating watch, it’s such a great insight into filmmaking.
I’d advise anyone to watch this and the theatrical cut back to back, you’ll learn so much about the process, rearranging scenes, editing, etc.
Pros:
- Compared to BvS: the script is much more structured, coherent, and simple. Also, this film doesn’t try to have any political depth or social commentary, which is a plus because that requires a filmmaker with subtlety, and Snyder is no such filmmaker. Finally, it doesn’t make any major mistakes like the Martha scene or Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.
- Compared to the theatrical cut: it does a much better job at fleshing out the characters. This particularly helps for Cyborg and Steppenwolf. It kinda turns Cyborg into the coolest character of the DCEU. Also, the editing of the action scenes is much better.
- I love that it has a big, epic tone. The storytelling feels like it takes a lot of inspiration from Lord of the Rings.
- Some great character moments, particularly with Alfred (I also liked Flash running back in time, the killing of Steppenwolf and Aquaman’s scene with Vulko ). There are actually quite a few laughs in this, more so than you’d expect from a Snyder film.
- The score is good (ignoring the overplayed WW theme).
Cons:
- It looks kinda hideous. There is an artificial and fake feeling to most of the scenes. The way it’s directed and shot can only be described as cheap and a visual overkill.
- Casting. Some of the main actors aren’t competent enough to star in a film like this. As long as they keep Momoa, Gadot and Miller, these films will always feel like discount Avengers films.
- It kinda drags, there are some scenes that could’ve been cut or shortened in order to improve the pacing. This is one of the things the theatrical cut does way better, even if it’s much more bland as a cut.
- The Flash still runs and acts like a moron. It particularly stands out in this cut because his Looney Tunes-esque antics are cringeworthy and don’t fit here, and his character still feels very barebones.
- Like BvS, the setting up of future films feels very clunky and forced.
- Though nowhere near as bad as in BvS, I once again noticed some painfully overwritten and forced dialogue.
In short:
Is it better than the theatrical cut, or BvS? Yes.
Is it a good movie? Not by any metric.
3.5/10
This ain’t an Ann Hathaway romantic comedy.
This ain’t a Jason Sudeikis wacky comedy.
This ain’t a Kaiju monster film.
Therein lies the rub with Colossal. Surely half of the audience who watched this film was expecting one of those types of films?
Truth be told it all depends on one what you like from your film-viewing. There’s a chance you might love this but also equally you could hate it, really it is that polarising.
There is no doubt the film is absurd and downright strange but along with Ann Hathaway, this is the strong points. You probably have not seen a film like this.
Both Hathaway and Sudeikis are primarily playing against type although perhaps at the beginning you would be forgiven for not thinking so.
Their characters are trapped by drink, lack of ambition and their overall poor character. Hathaway’s Gloria is gloriously useless and full of self-pity as she seems to gravitate to late night’s and drink at the drop of a hat. Sudeikis’ Oscar is a different barrel of fish, seemingly wholesome and friendly the longer things don’t pan out the way he thinks they should the darker more mean side of his nature, that has always been there, takes over. It’s an interesting study in the margins of society and how minor personality flaws can turn into major monsters that stomp their way through your life – oh see what happened there? That’s what this film is about with the metaphor made real – not particularly subtle but fun without any doubt.
Nacho Vigalondo shows in this film how he has a handle of the banality of being a shoddy average person in the modern world and how the slightest tipping of the balance can destroy anyone’s world. In a small way it reminded me of David Lynch in its outlook, with average, normal, Americana stripped back showing itself as ugly and mean and it is always only a layer away from being exposed.
Certainly there are laughs throughout the film, genuine laughs at funny moments, laughs at the stupidity of what you see and laughs at the absurdity in front of you – but it can not really be described as a comedy.
Colossal is interesting, fun and different. It is well acted, well directed and is trying to say something interesting in a way that you possibly have not seen before.
Finally, it has a great ending, not quite up there with Alan Parker’s Birdy but close. For the record, I’m on the ‘really liked it’ side of the equation.
2020 live action remake of Mulan (1998) is a family-friendly homage to wuxia films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Hero, and House of Flying Daggers than a retelling like The Lion King (2019). No songs, no animal sidekicks. While I am fond of 1998 predecessor, I have zero apprehension to this film wanting to be its own thing by shedding much of the connections.
Mulan (2020) had some troubled pasts, COVID-19 delaying and eventually cancelling theatrical release, lead actress Yifei Liu being an outspoken critic of Hong Kong independence movement, and $30 on-demand release tied to Disney+ subscription.
But it's finally here. The trailer certainly looked promising. Is it worth $30 "Premiere Access" fee? Or should Disney+ subscribers wait 3 months when it will be offered to all subscribers? To me, the answer depends heavily on the quality of your home theater.
I have a modest home theater setup: 65" OLED TV and just so so Dolby Atmos soundbar. Nothing that can even begin to replicate extravagant theatrical presentation that Niki Caro and her team intended. But even on this setup, the film is an audiovisual feast that hints how amazing proper cinema experience could've been.
With beautiful sets, sumptuous cinematography, colorful costumes, and competently choreographed action sequences, the film makes for fun family evening. Some critics dubbed the film Crouching Tiger, Jr. and I think that's very apt summary of the film. Toned down violence is suitable for younger audience (I think 7 or older is entirely suitable) and intentionally stylized martial arts scenes are treats. Music is understated for the most part, without any songs as mentioned earlier, "Reflection" theme from the animated film used on few occasions for nostalgia, as well as one notable cameo towards the end.
The film starts promising enough, precocious Crystal Rao playing young Mulan. But once Yifei takes over, the film starts to drag its pacing a bit. While the lead actress certainly looks the part and does a bang up job with martial arts sequences, she emotes little and lacks the charisma of Crouching's Ziyi Zhang. Thankfully, her limited thespian skills is somewhat masked by the veteran cast, led by Gong Li (plays by far the most interesting character that sadly wasn't given enough), Jason Scott Lee, Tzi Ma, and Donnie Yen.
Uneven pacing aside, which spends too much time in military training, the film is unfocused and lacks heart. As flawed as it was, 1998 animated counterpart carried the theme of self sacrifice to its sleeve. Despite its svelte 88 minutes running time, it felt epic. Even though this film runs nearly 30 minutes longer, stories feel disjointed and motivations underdeveloped.
But the most problematic is Mulan's sudden embrace of her "true" identity, and rapid acceptance and embrace by her peers. There's almost no sense of urgency, and the final battle feels anti-climatic as a result.
Still, at the end of the day, my family had a good time watching it last night. While the martial arts sequences do not break new ground, they look great and fun to watch. I just wish the film aimed higher for more emotional payoff.
I think that Mulan (2020) and Mulan (1998) are different beasts and are made with different audiences in mind. The original animated Mulan is made with a Western audience in mind whereas the new Mulan is very clearly made with a Chinese audience in mind based purely on the emphasis on the values and also just the whole vibe (idk lol).
As we quite well know, Mulan (2020) does not have Li Shang, nor the songs, and has added a supernatural element through the character of the witch, Xianniang. There’s an homage to the music in the score with the notes of Reflection playing at some emotionally poignant moments. Lowkey I’m not into the love interest in this new Mulan and I missed Li Shang to be honest. I didn’t quite mind the supernatural element so much as I have problems with Xianniang’s character, narratively.
So basically there’s the whole concept of chi in this movie wherein it’s the mark of a warrior and it makes the person very graceful but also kind of has extra powers? And because both Xianniang and Mulan are women who have chi, they’re ostracized because of it since women aren’t allowed to be warriors. Xianniang is set up as Mulan’s reflection (lol) basically. She’s an older woman who has chi and has developed her powers and because of it she’s exiled and has taken up with the Rourans (who seek to overthrow the Chinese emperor) so that she may have her own place where she will not be ostracized because of her chi.
So the problem I have with her character is basically that since she’s set up as Mulan’s reflection, I was expecting there to be a big showdown between the two and for Mulan to really struggle as she faces this person that she could potentially become. But while there is a fight, it was near the beginning and near the end when they face off, Xianniang gives in because Mulan has been accepted by her peers and is leading the men to defend the emperor. She even dies to protect Mulan which I guess is nice because she wasn’t bad and just doing what she’s doing because she’s been oppressed. But like. idk I was just hoping for more from her character y’know?
In any case, while it follows the same bones of Mulan (1998), this movie is markedly different and should be enjoyed as two different entities I guess, rather than a remake.
“You really can't unsee it once you've seen it.”
Guy Ritchie returns to his gangster roots in the underbelly of jolly good England. It’s crazy to think that this is the same guy who brought us last years ‘Aladdin.’ But this time Ritchie isn’t on a leash.
I honestly didn’t expect to enjoy ‘The Gentleman’ as much as I did. A little muddle and sometimes confusing to follow, but the movie has a certain sharpness to it that kept me interested throughout. It’s more in vein with ‘Lock Shock’ and ‘Snatch’. Ritchie has made a successful career being influenced by the work of Quentin Tarantino, hence his given title “British Tarantino”.
The cast are all having an absolute blast with the material and I can tell everyone wants to be there.
Hugh Grant is my personal favorite out of the cast and it’s great to see his enthusiasm in acting again. He plays Fletcher, a gay detective who documents the events in the story into a screenplay he’s writing, so in a way it’s told from his perspective. While debatable if everything in the movie was made up or not, cause “every movie needs a bit of action”. The thing I love about Grants performance is that he isn’t playing "typical Hugh Grant", but an actual character. Although I thought the running gag of him being openly gay and constantly makes flirty hints towards other male characters got old and awkward after awhile. A joke that out stay’s it’s welcome...kinda like Fletcher.
I’m not a big fan of Charlie Hunnam as an actor, as I usually find him bland in everything I’ve seen him so far. However I thought Hunnam delivered a solid performance in this movie and might be his best. He plays Ray, Mickey’s (McConaughey) right hand man who is professional when it comes to business despite the countless idiots in his path. Imagine Russell Bufalino from ‘The Irishman’, but more physical and incredibly British. His comedic timing was pretty good as well that maybe if you give him the right material and character, he’s a better actor than I thought.
Colin Farrell was terrific as Coach and my second favorite out of the cast. He’s ridiculously cool and shows who’s boss, but also display’s some comedic chops. Matthew McConaughey was chilled as Mickey, who is the weed Lord of England that likes things in green, which is money and marijuana. Out of all the colorful characters in the movie, I thought Mickey was the least interesting if I have to be honest. Either because of McConaughey's chilled nature or the less exciting material given to his character.
The style and overall tone of the movie made the whole experience so fun to watch. Everything about the movie is quick. The dialogue is snappy and there’s plenty of clever banter between characters. It’s incredibly clear that Guy Richie loves cinema whenever he’s not held back like some of his previous projects and gets to freely express his passion behind the craft.
The humor and jokes ain't for the faint of heart, but luckily I’m not that soft. Some of jokes didn’t quite land the mark and often times left me puzzled in terms of waiting for the punchline.
Overall rating: A disjointed, but entertaining movie. Misleading title though. There’s plenty of man, but not so much on gentle.
A classic tale retold in modern times. A shtick we've all seen before in many movies. Though, not a lot can say that they are up to the standards of The Kid Who Would Be King. This film takes the story of King Arthur and flips it. Using the basis narrative to be the forefront of a very meaningful parable.
Yes, this is a good King Arthur movie. It sells itself to be an action movie for kids, but it isn't. It's better than that. It's a family drama with a mystical element thrown in. With commentary that holds true to the characters and even audience watching. Forming to be a journey of lessons that relate directly to family struggles and world views. It was powerful with the aid of visual effects that gracefully captured action and stylised story-telling.
Alex, our main protagonist was acted wonderfully by Andy Serkis' kid, Luis. Showing off lovely emotion when needed and giving a realistic sense of childlike wonder and confusion in sensible ways. All the other cast did have issues though. Not really caring for Tom Taylor's character and neither for Rhianna Dorris'. Feeling too rushed into the story was also a let down with these two. But Angus Imrie did a wonderful job at his portrayal of Merlin. I actually liked him so much that when Patrick Stuart came in, I didn't even give it a second thought as to who I want back more. They both stuck the landing in likeability. But that magic hand movement was maybe a bit too wacky? I don't know how I feel about it, to be honest.
Now the villain is more a metaphor here that didn't need to be shown off a lot. But alas, we got to see them and what a bad casting choice it was for Rebecca Ferguson. She wasn't menacing enough and didn't pose a big enough threat. She would have been better being shielded within shadows for the whole movie. Because what she represents was much better than her reveal. Though, we did get some nice looking action scenes from it. But more questions as well, involving the safety of some people in the last act.
The Kid Who Would Be King is a fantastic family movie. Having a tremendous moral lining that kids should take with them. A bit forceful at times when it came to the delivery. It still gripped me with its visuals. The fight scenes at night were gorgeous and satisfied me for action. I am impressed with how much love and effort was put into this instead of leaving it to be another generic classic retelling of a story for kids. There was care here, and it shows greatly. A true and welcoming surprise.
8.2/10
Sorry folks but this one didn't go well for Marvel. I don't even know where to start. Acting was average, more like below average. Screenplay was as much ordinary as it could be. No surprise here. CGI was OK but it's somehow expected from Marvel. But I totally didn't like the idea of Wakanda. Hidden city in the center of Africa with tons of technology and advanced weapons and systems and so on. But how the hell did they build all of that? No explanation. It just happened. Yes, they have Vibranium, but they don't sell it. In fact they never did and for whole world they are just a bunch of shepherds and farmers. So where did they take all that money to build empire like this? I don't like movies without explanations and this is one of them. Almost nothing has been told about Vibranium whatsoever. Oh yeah, it's some super thing from the universe capable of anything. That's all the explanation you get. There are too many clichés we have already seen too many times. And we have to see them again. One example: I challenge someone for a fight because I want to kill him. And when I have the chance to kill him, what would I do? Kill him or throw him down from the cliff to the water where he can survive? But enough. If you hesitate if to watch this, I can recommend not to waste your time. Wait for the Avangers where you can also see the Black Panther. You won't miss anything if you miss out this movie.
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
Back in 2014, there was a film called "Whiplash" that blew everyone away, including me. It was my 2nd favorite movie of that year and I had my eye out for the director next project. Wasn't very long until Damien Chazelle next film in was in post-production and was already a serious Oscar contender. I think "La La Land" and "Silence" was my most anticipated movies of 2016/17. And let me tell you, it did not disappoint.
"La La Land" is one of the best musicals I've seen since "Sweeney Todd" and "Singing in the Rain". It's a movie that lifts your spirit up and leaves you smiling though out. Even with today's generation of loud politics, four years of Trump, celebrities dying, and endless amount of pointless controversy. But then comes a musical about two people who are dreamers, that deal with inn conflict and show how dreams can lead to success. By making the impossible possible while living in a place where dreams come to die.
Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone were both dynamite in this movie. The relationship was sweet and relatable that I actually cared for what was going on. Even with the singing and dancing use as a tool that the characters express their happiness, sadness or disappointment was terrific. This is the best I've seen from Stone and Gosling. Both of them sparkle in this musical.
Damien Chazelle, what can I say about this guy. Chazelle as a film making is both amazing and inspirational. He's on a roll recently and if he's next two movies are brilliant, then he is the best living director today. In "La La Land", he follows a similar theme in his previous movie "Whiplash" about fighting for a dream and jazz, but this movie goes for more a light tone than a dark one. For the dramatic elements of the movie, I really like how he lets it go on for awhile as an emotional effect. He also got an eye for spectacle, because LA never looked so beautiful and fairy tale-like. What else is there to say, but Chazelle nailed it.
Without spoiling anything, but the last shot of this movie was so beautiful and yet sad at the same time. Chazelle sure knows how to end his movies and that's with a powerful punch.
My only complaint I have with the movie is that a few scenes could've been trimmed a bit, as it dragged for me. And while the homages to old musicals were fitting, but some was a bit down your throat. I wouldn't say repetitive (because it's not), but more of a "alright, I get it" kind of complaint. That's really it for flaws.
Overall rating: "La La Land" is simply wonderful. It's a firework of joy and excitement that it's really hard not to fall in love with it. I'm already looking forward to "First Man".
Before we review a film like Jurassic World, we need to state one basic rule. We will try not to compare it too much to our memories of the original. Jurassic Park is one of my favourite childhood films, and thus is etched into my mind as a masterpiece that no other dino flick can reach, therefore any sequel would not be up to par. Also, it's worth noting that before going in, I had already seen/heard lots of thoughts and opinions (it's near impossible not to tbh when you have the current action hero Chris Pratt starring, and listen to the Nerdist podcasts).
So, let's get into this, I am not sure we need a synopsis for this film, so I will keep this brief. In the previous film(s) dinosaurs had been brought back from extinction, and they ate some people. In this film, corporate sponsors decided to try it all again, but people are bored of dinos now, so they create a new one. This leads towards, yup, dinosaurs eating people.
Do you need to have watched the previous film(s)? No, not really, although you should anyway. There are a few scenes where the characters don't explain where they are, but if you have seen the first film, you will know and recognise the vehicles/equipment, but if you don't know, nothing is really lost.
My main concerns going into this film though, were not about the plot or dinos, but around whether I would actually connect with any of the characters, the kids looked annoying, as did the Clare character, also, I didn't just want another Star Lord character from Pratt. That being my main concern, this was actually pushed back after the first quarter of the film, once some actual peril was inserted into the plot, Clare quickly opened up to be a proper character, and the kids were less screamy than I thought they were going to be (my scream limit was at the brink in the first film, I must say). As for Pratt, he brought some light humour, but not the loose cannon style we have seen before from him, he was knowledgeable and serious, with a light tongue-in-cheek style which worked nicely.
The other concern was from the trailers, in that Pratts character seemingly communicates with the raptors. Now we all saw Indy IV with Mutt speaking to his monkey army (sorry to all those that were trying to forget that nonsense), and I was really fearful this would again be the case. Well, set your minds at ease, it's portrayed in a much more realistic way, where he is merely slowing the raptors down and feeding them. This gives the illusion of control, which is a central point of the Jurassic films.
The last point, which you may have read a lot on is the marketing in-film with a lot of product placements. I will keep this brief, it is there, and there are parts of the plot which use this in a really nice way. I did not feel it over the top in a Waynes World style as others have implied, and am often suprised I don't see more of this on TV (especially as ad breaks are dying out)
So, with those pre-concerns out of the way, what did I think of the film? Well as a film, it was really good. We got the action and poor-judgements we expect in this sort of film. There is also some family turmoil (with the kids and their parents) which thankfully is not suddenly resolved because of this disaster (that would have close to ruined the film for me if they had).
Sadly there was one thing missing in my opinion, but if you think about it, it makes sense based on the plot points and story (bigger, scarier). There are no small dinos, even the petting dinos are baby ones of larger dinos. One of the few things I liked about JP2 was the small dinos which stalked and nibbled people to death, they were proper scary. This is maybe the point which carries my only real negative opinion of the film, there was no fear factor. The big dinos, whilst amazing to look at, and are dangerous, aren't scary enough. Yes they added some extra stealth features, but still, in JP1 we had the stealthy raptors, and in JP2 we had the micro-dinos. The third film did not have the dinos, but it was a different type of movie IMHO than the other films (note, I did enjoy JP3). But JP4, the closest I got to good scary dinos was from the birdcage, so wish those had stealthed a little more like in 'the birds'.
Finally, for better or for worse, the ending involves something that reminded me of some kind of dinobot teamup, I quickly got over that, but it was still there, and a little less realistic because of it.
Overall this was a really good/fun film, which I certainly enjoyed. That said, the fear factor (mini dinos/ flying dinos) really was the missing element for me. I don't want to be in a cinema of crying children, but having the silhouetted mini dinos in a long creeper scene would have been great.
It definitely deserves to sit in the Jurassic Park series though, and is probably a good 2nd in my list of JP films (although I do wonder what those that weren't born to JP1 in the cinema think of that ordering).
My wifes review
Me: Did you like the film?
Wife: yes, it was all raaaaargh and stuff
I found this movie to be entertaining and engaging. Kids will enjoy all the adventure and action. Disney did a good job. I did pick up on the environmental undertone of this movie. That through our actions we are heading to our own end. I thought Hugh Laurie had the best end speech near the end of the movie. It was, to me, an honest account of how we are as human beings.
The key phrase in this movie is that our children are our future and that we should never give up or except the path we are on, rather it is up to us to change it to make the world a better place so we may continue to survive and thrive.
I found there to be quite a bit of humor in this film as well and not the kind that went over kids heads to appeal to the grown ups. Granted when I went I didn't see many kids, if any in the theater at the time. That was probably due to the rating of 14+. The word 'hell' is used a few time so I have no doubt it played it's part.
The acting was well done and I would definitely call this a family movie and would recommend this to people.
Warning: This review refers to some events that happened in the TV-Series this is a sequel of. If you haven't seen the series yet and don't want to get spoiled, don't read this and don't watch the movie.
After just watching all 3 seasons of the series this movie is a follow-up and thought to be a conclusion of, I feel disappointed with this outing. Many people have stated that this feels like a long episode of the TV-Series. And this fits pretty well, considering it features just one case. But for a single case it runs longer than it should. But for a case like the one which is being presented, one that would have normally been a season wide case, it runs too short. This creates the feeling of it being rushed while being too slow at the same time. It has an uneven balance, if you will, which creates an awkward feeling of being bored even though you think you have all the ingredients. And that's disappointing because you actually don't have the ingredients that made the series good. You have some of them, yes, but the proportions are all wrong.
The series had a good balance of case solving, school stuff, banter between different characters and daddy-daughter interactions. The latter of which was the heart of the series, at least in my ees, and is painfully kept to a bare minimum in the movie - but with a reason, as Veronica is not a kid anymore. The movie also replaces the school stuff with Veronica trying to get a job as a lawyer at some firm, kept to an even barer minimum, or the school reunion. I'm not sure what is meant to be the replacement. What runs wild is the case solving (which is one of the worst and boring compared to other Veronica Mars cases) and the banter between characters, which is mostly limited to interactions between Logan, who is yet again a murder suspect (third time's the charm I guess), and Veronica - who is currently dating Piz again - whose appearance is also kept to a bare minimum. I don't know why he's even there, but apparently the movie needed to find a way to put every old player back into the game somehow. There also is a Lamb back as sheriff in Neptune.
But it's not Don, because he's ... you know ... dead. It's his older brother Dan, whose name doesn't sound like it was meant bring back Don in any way, shape or form. He also doesn't feel like a copy of Don. Nope. Not at all. Mac and Wallace are also back, both still living in Neptune but not living their dream job-wise - but this can happen in life and is actually something good the movie is doing. They don't really do stuff in the movie besides getting Veronica to the school reunion and talk about the good old times. Then we have Weevil who, surprisingly, evolved the most out of all characters during the time between the series' end and the movie, which makes what happens in the movie only more disappointing...
And that is my biggest gripe with the movie: It feels very contrived and is not giving the promised closure. Hell, the Season 3 finale gave more closure than this. This is a new beginning, already setting up stuff for the next movie, which perhaps will be the closure we've been promised.
Here be movie-spoilers:
Even Rob Thomas stated he originally wanted to tell a different story (The Ten Thousand Dollar Tan Line), but he had to tell this one first. And this is why I think the story feels contrived and like a set up: because it is. But bringing every character - even a Lamb one - back into the roles they had during the TV series doesn't bode well for future installments, which are surely coming.
"What am I living for?" - This is the central question of this film and right at the beginning we know we are expecting something extremely philosophical.
In The Zero Theorem we follow the computer hacker Qohen Leth, who works for a company called Mancom. His job is to decipher the supposed impossible "Zero Theorem", the theorem that will figure out which is after all the purpose of human existence. Qohen is an obsessive, very odd and lonely man and is constantly being interrupted by the owner of the company, the pompous Management that will try to obstruct the path, putting in front of him certain obstacles. Qohen is very methodical and with that he will be completely disoriented.
We know that Qohen is anxiously waiting for a call, that for what we realize, will finally bring something that he desires, but throughout the film we are not sure what he means and that sometimes is a bit frustrating.
This story is passed in a weird future where everything seems awkward and clumsy, but whoever it works very well! This world is very interesting and all the scenarios created are absolutely brilliant!
Christoph Waltz is a very versatile actor, seeing him in this complex role was great! Despite only getting very few scenes in the film, also found interesting to see Matt Damon in a more bizarre role than usual. Tilda Swinton, once again wonderful in a role that she really knows how to do and I would also like to mention the young actor Lucas Hedges for the good work.
The film shows a strong evaluation about human existence where - and I quote something close to a line said in the film - "chaos has profit". When society is led to believe in something higher - as Qohen faithfully believed that such a call would solve his problems and the end of his lonely life - human beings find comfort and life becomes meaningless, because the waiting becomes the reason of life... And will be this the waiting for something better after existence? Does humans only have the purpose to follow the journey of life with the aim of reaching eternal peace and happiness? Was this "waiting" what made the main character living an entire life of insignificance, but when he finds friendship and love is when he starts to realize that life is much more than sitting waiting for something good to fall from heaven.
In my point of view, the entire film is a metaphor and perhaps a controversial critique for those who believe in any religion. It is also sure to have faith and not need to belong to any specific religion, but the truth is that faith always moved people, and if we have a lot of faith is easier to reach certain goals.
The Zero Theorem can be a weird film, but certainly very intelligent. However I believe that will not please everyone.
